Neil Williams <codeh...@debian.org> writes: > Ole Streicher <oleb...@debian.org> wrote: >> There are no things "that the metapackage is for": The package just >> collects a number of programs that belong to the same author and are > > The "same author" bit is a bit odd, there needs to be some common > purpose in aggregating a list of packages into a metapackage in the > first place but that's based on function, not authorship.
Ofcourse "same author" was a shortened explanation. You may view "astromatic" as a toolbox, where it is handy to get the whole toolbox at once. But there is no real need that the screwdriver is in, or the hammer -- so if someone doesn't need something, he can just remove it. Usually, one would install all tools together, but nothing breaks if this is not the case. But, the toolbox has no specific "function"; it is just handy since it makes it easier for people to install what they want. "I want to have the Astromatic packages" is a common user request. >> usually installed together. There is no particular requirement to have >> any of them installed; therefor I don't want to make any single >> program as "Depend". > > I'd still use Depends in the metapackage. e.g. foo-server has lots of > strict dependencies without which is simply won't install or start. That is different. For me, my situation is comparable to the dependency of Gnome from Evolution: I don't use Evolution at all, and I don't understand why its binary must be installed on my Gnome desktop. I would like to have it as a Recommends and then uninstall it (and I am not the only one: you find some hack on how to remove on the internet). This is IMO an ugly situation, which I want to avoid for my users. Best regards Ole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/ytztwsnfkh2....@news.ole.ath.cx
