Re: "Gnome" package now requires installing "tracker"?
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:46:10 -0500, Tom H wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Camaleón <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:24:44 -0500, Tom H wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Camaleón <email@example.com> wrote:
>>>> What makes this package different (and a requirement) is what I'd
>>>> like to know.
>>> It doesn't take much to check that GNOME pulls in GNOME Documents!
>> Oh, really?
>> Look at the subject and then review my first post ;-)
> I knew your first post but I thought that you'd forgotten it...
He, nice try!
> You're disagreeing with the GNOME developers installing Tracker by
> default (whatever the actual dependency chain is).
No. What I disagree is installing a package that WAS NOT previously
installed because now is a hard dependency of a package that WAS
> It's their right and their choice; and, in their view, having Tracker by
> default in GNOME enhances their DE.
Of course it's their right. It is also my right to remove the metapackage
to avoid that decision as well as is also my right to ask for the reasons
of such movement. It is also my right to express my disagreement with
that new hard requirement and all of that is what I did. I hope you don't
get upset nor annoyed by this, this is how the community works, right?
> It's also your right to disable/remove/replace Tracker (one method that
> I haven't mentioned before is "equivs"; it's more work but it's another
> possibility) should you choose to do so.
Yup, already done, but instead removing tracker I purged the whole gnome
metapackage to avoid future "disagreements" ;-)