On Tuesday 13 September 2005 12:21 am, Marc Wilson wrote: > Because the whole reason the "gnome-desktop-environment" *meta-package* > exists is to give you a complete Gnome. Not Gnome minus whatever *this* > cluebie doesn't like, whatever *that* cluebie doesn't like, etc. > > If you don't like what the meta-package installs, don't use the > gods-be-damned thing. Install one of the sub-packages, install whatever > parts of Gnome float your boat. The dependencies of the meta-package tell > you what they all are. I think you intentionally misunderstand what he's saying. He's saying that 50% of the gnome desktop shouldn't be removed by aptitude because one packages is missing from the "gnome experience" metapackage. And maybe it shouldn't have even moved in to testing if a dependacy wasn't met? It is not possible to do what you claim. The only way to get the subcomponents in to your system is to mark them as manual installs. And even then other fundamental Gnome components won't installed because the gnome-multimedia metapackage conditions aren't met. You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the complexity of gnome intradependacies. Sound-juicer not being present forces aptitude to remove approximately 50% of Gnome to avoid unmet dependacies. Further, marking packages as manual installs when you later intend to use the metapackage to track upgrades is a bad idea. Finding all the packages you marked as 'manual' and remarking them as 'auto' is no simple task. > Oh, wait... that would mean you'd actually have a clue about what testing > is, wouldn't it? This was rude and unnessary. And it seems that he understands what testing is: a testing ground for canidates for "stable". Why something this obviously not "stable" fell in to testing is a question I'm curious about, myself. Especially since an unmet dependacy is supposed to keep this from happening automatically. In this case it seems that someone named 'Volorn' forced Gnome to fall in to testing when it wasn't ready. > > Why should I *have* to install sound-juicer? > > You don't. See above. You do or several things won't install. > > And this same question applies to a lot of other packages. Often if I > > try to upgrade a bunch of stuff, ... > > <snip OP describing his misunderstanding of how updates work> > > Why don't you just stick to stable, huh? Because stable is too old for a desktop. And unstable is too new for a desktop. Testing is just right (usually). -- I use digital signatures and encryption. My key is stored at pgp.mit.edu key ID code: "0x8DB3BF09". F: F628 D9D3 E57A C281 5EFE 7DF7 B52A A393 8DB3 BF09
Attachment:
pgp9mpVONbE7O.pgp
Description: PGP signature