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

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

On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:54:17PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 04:39:56PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> > 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.
> > 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 don't agree that responding to a troll will lead to a beneficial outcome.

You're entitled to your option, of course.
Still, there were some valid points in that e-mail.

> In this case, unless you're specifically trying to remove all of these
> specific dependencies (for no apparent reason) *it simply doesn't
> matter*.

And as I wrote in another part of this thread:

User tries to uninstall a program, for instance - "xarchiver", and user
has "lxqt" metapackage installed. User sees that apt tries to install
another dependency of "lxqt" along with removing the xarchiver.
Or, user has "lxde" metapackage installed. User tries to remove
"xarchiver", which removes "lxde" by dependency, which removes all of
LXDE as a result.

Disregarding "gnome" metapackage, which of the cases seems sane to you?
Or the end user?


Reply to: