Re: "Gnome" package now requires installing "tracker"?
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Camaleón <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:46:10 -0500, Tom H wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Camaleón <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:24:44 -0500, Tom H wrote:
>>>> 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!
Believe it or not I did know that you'd said that earlier in the
thread. i didn't remember that it was in the very first post.
>> 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
So you're unhappy about dependencies changing!
>> 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 your right to object but you tend to persist in your
protestations beyond what's strictly necessary. In package
installation terms, I'd say that you exhaust the "depends", the
"recommends", and the "suggests". :)
In this particular case, you have two posters with d.o eddresses, at
least one of whom is a member of the GNOME maintainers' team,
explaining the reasons for this dependency.