-=| Russ Allbery, 19.05.2014 13:21:41 -0700 |=- > Damyan Ivanov <dmn@debian.org> writes: > > > The note in the Release Notes would mean that users of unstable will not > > notice the removal, but I guess this is a price to be paid. Bugging > > each and every upgrade with a NEWS.Debian entry seems like > > spam. 'perl-base' is ranked #1 in popcon. Hmm, perhaps add a NEWS.Debian > > entry and remove it before Jessie? (this starts to have too many moving > > parts :)) > > perl-base isn't the relevant package, though, isn't it? This would be for > perl. (Or were some of those modules in base?) perl has a 99.59% installation rate :) > I think NEWS.Debian is appropriate. It's certainly used for things > that people generally care about less (such as all new CAs in the > ca-certificates package), and people have to make an intentional choice to > install apt-listchanges to see the upgrade notifications. I think this is > exactly the sort of situation that NEWS.Debian was intended for: a > backwards-incompatible change in the packaging. Thanks. This convinces me. I guess I erred on the "don't possibly harm anyone" side. > I vote for documenting this in NEWS.Debian, retaining Depends > *maybe* for one release at most, and then downgrading to at least > Recommends with a goal of removing the dependency entirely in the > long run. Niko commented on IRC that removal of automatically installed packages that are no longer depended on is fine, since apt/aptitude gives a warning about this, IOW there is no silent breakage. And if people blindly click "Next>>" it's not something we can fix. Another point that Niko raised and with whis I tend to agree is that Recommends may be better than a hard dependency since that would satisfy the needs of the people that care more about disk size than about safety Cheers, dam
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature