On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 07:22:33PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > Which point in the dependency chain do you think should be weakened from > Depends to Recommends? I think the dependency from libgtk-3-0-common > generated by dh_installgsettings is probably the most appropriate, or at > least, least inappropriate?
I believe that full Depends is ok. The original reporter's problem wasn't about bloat, but about libgtk-3's dependency chain pulling in system-sysv in a way that makes apt refuse to install it otherwise without some obscure knowledge on the part of the user, that eludes even some DDs. > When an angry user turns up on the BTS complaining that GTK has a > grave bug (configuration lost) or a serious bug (Policy §3.5, missing > dependencies), is there consensus that this should be considered to > be not-a-bug and closed? Aye, good point. > I thought I remembered Policy having something to say about weakening > shared libraries' dependencies on services to Recommends or weaker > (e.g. libdbus-1-3 only Recommends dbus and does not depend on it, even > though it's of little use without dbus), but now I can't find it in > Policy, and I also can't find a bug asking for that. Does this exist, > or did I imagine it? That proposal was about moving Depends:/Recommends: relationships, not about removing them. Since, as you describe, the programs would still require *conf to save their data, it wouldn't fix this particular problem. One idea I have would be to change the way dbus-session is chosen, with a real metapackage that defaults to dbus-user-session if systemd is already installed or dbus-x11 if not, but that's just brainstorming, and my brain hasn't slept in 60 hours. Meow! -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian is one big family. Including that weird uncle ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ and ultra-religious in-laws. ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀