Re: Good news on claws-mail
On 20/10/14 00:35, Peter Nieman wrote:
> On 19/10/14 13:48, Brian wrote:
>> On Sat 18 Oct 2014 at 17:29:58 +0200, Peter Nieman wrote:
>>
>>> On 18/10/14 13:49, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>>>> Do you have an answer to your question?
>>>>
>>>> Wild guess - notifications?
>>>
>>> I don't know claws, but I know from Wheezy that many packages depend
>>> on dbus although dbus isn't necessary for doing the job. Please look
>>> here for examples:
>>> https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2014/09/msg00843.html
>>> How is dbus necessary for opening a pdf file, for instance? And mail
>>> clients were able to notify users even before dbus was invented.
>>> Trying to get rid of such dependencies is a good thing, in my humble
>>> opinion.
>>
>> The original post was about claws. My reply was also about claws. If I
>> hadn't known anything about the topic I wouldn't have responded. You
>> obviously take a different view about things you cannot be bothered to
>> check. The OP made a specific *technical* claim. It has been shown to be
>> fatuous.
>>
>> brian@desktop:~$ apt-cache -i rdepends dbus | wc -l
>> 63
>>
>> None of the 63 packages is a PDF reader.
>
> I was just trying to explain to Scott why I appreciated every effort to
> get rid of unnecessary dependencies, especially with regard to
> (lib)dbus. I did not want to force you to talk about pdf readers.
You hijacked the thread - and this is why that's considered bad form -
it muddies the discussion. Tangents deserve their own, appriately chosen
Subject line, threads - then they get the attention they deserve instead
of being passed over by reader on the basis that the subject has nothing
to do with the OP. It's also respectful to the OP - even if his posts
seems information-free spammy self-promotion.
I'll now tell a long story about when we used to wear onions on our belt
- it was the fashion at the time, back in nineteen dickety-doo...
> Anyway, evince *recommends* dbus-X11, but after removing dbus it no
> longer worked.
Using --no-install-recommends is not perfect - you need to be careful
what you OK (I assume you used the apt-get -s option to simulate the
install first). What 'may' have happened is that libx11-6 or similar was
removed (autoremove) as a result. echo that package (if the offender) to
set-selections might have worked. Consider also that what evince may
only recommend - may be something that another package depends on. This
is why src is available - and dummy packages.
>
>> On the other hand. the actual mechanism involved in a
>> wheezy upgrade has been been spoken about a number of times.
>
> And opinions about it varied widely.
As they do - from informed to, not. It's diversity - and not all of it
is healthy to embrace.
>
>
Kind regards
Reply to: