Re: required vs recommended -was Re: apt-get vs Aptitude
[ Discussing Recommends: vs. Depends: is rather off topic for this
list, so I won't respond beyond this message on this list. ]
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Lukasz Szybalski wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:09 PM, Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> wrote:
> > IIRC apt-get will install recommends by default from now on too,
> > as Recommends: should contain packages that all but unusual
> > installations should include. If you don't want recommends, use
> > --without-recommemends or set Aptitude::Recommends-Important
> > appropriately.
>
> Just out of curiosity what are the reasons for such a move.
Because it means that in the most normal cases people will get
Recommends: installed so that things which have previously been
Depends: but aren't strictly required can be more safely made
Recommends:.
If you know better than the default, and you care about the install
size, it's trivial to disable.
> If I understand this correctly required is all the software that
> needs to be on in order for it to run.(80% of the time this is what
> I need) recommended is the other 20% where there is a feature I
> would want to use.!??!! (I needed that only twice in 4 years)
I'm unable to follow you here; please use the actual terminology that
is used in the control files.
> digikam triples the amount of software needed to run digikam and
> installs software like (kmail, kaddressbook, korganizer) which on
> gnome don't do me any good but are recomended if one chooses to use
> them.
That's because it Recommends: kipi-plugins which Recommends: kmail,
kooka, and sane-utils. If this concerns you, you should file a bug
requesting that some of those packages should be Suggests: instead of
Recommends: and carefully explain your reasoning.
Since I don't use any of the programs you've mentioned, I'm not the
right person to file these bugs.
Don Armstrong
--
Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for
the people.
-- Oscar Wilde
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: