[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#201059: marked as done (Poor package dependency structure)

Your message dated Sun, 23 Apr 2006 11:34:28 +0200
with message-id <200604231134.28688.debian@pusling.com>
and subject line Poor package dependency structure
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: korganizer
Version: 4:3.1.2-1

The korganizer package currently has a dependency on the kalarm package. The
korganizer application does not need to have the kalarm application
installed in order to run - it only needs the kalarmd program which is part
of the kalarm package. It would be better to split the kalarm package into
two: kalarm and kalarmd, with both kalarm and korganizer depending on
kalarmd. korganizer would then not depend on kalarm.

kalarmd is the alarm monitoring daemon which is used by both the kalarm and
korganizer applications. It is not specific to either application, despite
its name suggesting that it belongs to kalarm. Since it is a requirement for
both kalarm and korganizer but belongs to neither, it would be better if it
was put in a separate package required by both. That would remove the
requirement to install kalarm in order to run korganizer, which is totally
unnecessary.

--
David Jarvie.
KAlarm author.

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
As korganizer have its own alarm daemon and korganizer do not depend on kalarm 
anymore, I am closing this 2 1/2 years old bug report.

/Sune

Attachment: pgptMPujvgBW2.pgp
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: