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

Re: Gnome 2.10 going in to etch today

On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 09:28 -0500, Jason Clinton wrote:
> 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?

That's why "we" don't like aptitude.  It too aggressively removes

> 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.

If things like this trip you up, don't use meta-packages.

> 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.

That won't happen if you use apt-get, and install apps manually.

Look at the gnome-desktop-environment and then "# apt-get install"
the ones you want, or install everything except that which you
don't want.

Yes, that's initially more time-consuming than installing g-d-e,
but it *does* work.

Question: why use a metapackage to track upgrades, when packages
are already installed manually?  Or is this an apt-get vs. aptitude

> > 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.

Maybe it's because I'm running sid, use apt-get and already have
sound-juicer installed, but this command only removes sound-juicer:

  # apt-get remove sound-juicer


> Because stable is too old for a desktop. And unstable is too new for a 
> desktop. Testing is just right (usually).

In your opinion.  IMNSHO, unstable is a good desktop.

Ron Johnson, Jr.
Temporarily not of Jefferson, LA USA
PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail.

Tatoo in haste, regret in leisure.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: