On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > On Tue, 2016-04-26 at 17:56 +0200, Tormod Volden wrote: >> > Well it's the same case as with gnome-screensaver, I thought. >> > Both can use the screensaver modules provided by xscreensaver >> I should probably remove the Enhance for gnome-screensaver. > > Or that... and tell the gnome-screensaver guys, that they should > Recommend/Suggest your packages directly.
Yes, I think it would be correct to remove the Enhance's. I don't have the full overview of all alternative screensaver engines and whether they make use of the xscreensaver hacks, so I should leave that to these other packages to figure it out for themselves. > In any case however, I think that the dependencies(i.e. Enhances), at > least on the xscreensaver packages) should be the same for all possible > users (at least, cinnamon-screensaver, gnome-screensaver and mate- > screensaver) And that will not be a problem any longer :) > > btw: I just noticed, that you also mention gnome-screensaver in the > package descriptions... I think that should also go away then, since > gnome-screensaver is in no way more special than e.g. cinnamon- > screensaver (or possible others like mate-screensaver). I have already generalized the text some (in my own tree at least) but I'll go over it and make it consistent, just mention "other screensaver engines" or so. Cheers, Tormod > > >> > > Wouldn't it be better to have cinnamon-screensaver Suggest these >> > > packages? I guess cinnamon-screensaver Recommends xscreensaver- >> > > data >> > > and xscreensaver-gl already. >> > Well they recommend it already... so no need for a Suggests. >> Note that I was talking about two other packages here. I would think >> all 4 should be Suggested. > > At least in the current version they recommend all 4... I personally > have no strong opinion on whether the -extra packages should only be > suggested... > > > Cheers, > Chris.
