Andreas Metzler wrote: > David Paleino <da...@debian.org> wrote: > [...] >> With the *autoremove* command being now widely used, it can become >> difficult for a user to install a meta-package but some packages it >> depends on. > > I do not understand this, is there a word missing?
Probably I didn't use a clear wording. "[..] to install a meta-package except for some packages it depends on." Is that clearer? >> Backwards Compatibility >> ----------------------- >> We started thinking about "Meta-Depends" fields, but soon abandoned the >> idea. This is because this field would break existing package managers >> which haven't implemented yet this DEP. That's why we chose to keep >> Depends, and add an extra field, called **Meta-Package**. > [...] > > The current proposal is not backwards compatible since it fundamentally > changes the meaning of Depends. Depends is transitive. If A depends on > B, and B depends on C. A can rely on functionality proveided by C. > Your proposal breaks that, since it allows removal of C (assuming B is > a meta package), keeping it installed in a broken state. I hope no-one ever depends on a meta-package. Do you have any real case for this? > I am not convinced that the gain (easily install KDE without kmail, or > something like that) Yes, that's exactly the point. > is worth this price. It changes a clear relation to something that most of > the times works as expected, except for some special cases. "Special cases" like depending on a meta-package? I'd personally change policy to forbid that ;) Thanks for commenting, David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
