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

Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)

Hash: SHA256

Reco wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:08:04PM -0000, Dan Purgert wrote:
>> Reco wrote:
>>>> I don't think anything needs to be done here -- the whole idea of
>>>> (meta)packages is that you give up some choice for the benefits of not
>>>> having to deal with dependency hell.  
>>> I disagree. The parent thread shows that at least some of the users are
>>> confused by metapackages.
>> So then the education needs to be fixed, not the material.  I mean, at
>> one point in our lives, we were all confused by what we'd consider
>> "simple mathematics" nowadays.
> And we both know it does not work this way, although it should.
> One could write thousand words in the documentation, explaining
> everything in the finest detail possible. But if no one is reading the
> documentation - is there a meaning in all this work?
> Hence my suggestion. Users are confused already, and it won't get
> better. I have no problem filling a wishlist bugreport, but I like to
> estimate the possible users' reaction.

The ultimate underlying problem is that in this case, the user didn't
like that the package wanted to force a specific set of programs on the

Now, yes, there are what sound like technical inconsistencies in the
packages (i.e. they're not actually "required" by anything other than
this metapackage itself); although it seems to be that the general user
expectation would be that a DE supplies some form of archive handling

Whether or not that's extraneous to the user's preferred software is
another question entirely -- I mean, I have cthulhu-knows how many
different programs installed simply from core-utils.  I probably touch
but a fraction of them, and yet they're still here.  Not to mention all
the "extras" that come along with say groff, or LaTeX.

>> [...]
>> I think I worded the response here poorly.
>> ...
>> engrampa. Of those, I assume that all three provide the necessary
>> "provides xyzzy" information (e.g. how installing postfix or exim
>> "provides" /usr/sbin/sendmail) to allow generic graphical tools to hook
>> ...
> No, I got you first time. Rather it's my response deviated elsewhere.
> I see nothing in those three packages that would qualify as "xyzzy".
> Alternatives? No. Mime types registration? No.

Certainly shows my limited understanding of how it all fits together,
that's for sure :).

> About the only common thing about all three packages is that they are
> GUI archivers.
> I do not question a choice of these three archivers as "lxqt"
> dependency. What I do question is the kind of dependency itself.

I might've deleted it in editing somewhere, I was operating under the
assumption that "a gui archiver" is a required component of a "complete
DE" (for some value of "complete", anyway).

>> In either event, I think one of the mails mentioned wanting to use
>> peaZip, which isn't even available in the repos, so it doesn't matter
>> anyway; as APT would never be able to do dependency resolution.
> Why, apt certainly can do it. It's just requires the user to package
> PeaZip first ☺

He's having a hard enough time with packages, that're already available
in the repos.  This is just mean :D



|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5  4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

Reply to: