On mer., 2011-08-31 at 11:59 +0100, Wolodja Wentland wrote:
Could you elaborate on your reasons and your intentions for making the
distinction?
Policy 7.2, mostly, and the fact depends are installed (obviously),
recommends are installed by default (but that can be disabled and one
can remove
* Josselin Mouette [2011-09-01 09:52 +0200]:
I think we could solve a lot of those problems by treating metapackages
specially in APT.
Ubuntu has a section metapackages, introducing such a section in
Debian could be the first step to treat metapackages specially.
Carsten
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Wolodja Wentland babi...@gmail.com writes:
is there a specific reason why metapackages depend rather then
recommend packages they are meant to pull in?
The rationale behind this question is [0] that we see a plethora of
users in #debian who ask questions like: Why did apt remove all my
Le lundi 29 août 2011 à 16:40 +0100, Wolodja Wentland a écrit :
is there a specific reason why metapackages depend rather then recommend
packages they are meant to pull in?
There are several reasons for that - at least for the GNOME ones.
The first one is to guarantee that newly added
like gnome, xfce4, kde-full, ...) is a sensible change. It is
in
particular one that solves the problems without the need to introduce new
package fields, change packaging tools or their semantics.
If you think some dependencies in those metapackages are unneeded or too
strong, you're
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 04:40:30PM +0100, Wolodja Wentland wrote:
is there a specific reason why metapackages depend rather then recommend
packages they are meant to pull in?
The statement that metapackages depend from packages is not true in
general. A counter example are those metapackages
Andreas Tille andr...@an3as.eu (30/08/2011):
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 04:40:30PM +0100, Wolodja Wentland wrote:
is there a specific reason why metapackages depend rather then
recommend packages they are meant to pull in?
The statement that metapackages depend from packages is not true in
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 09:26 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 04:40:30PM +0100, Wolodja Wentland wrote:
is there a specific reason why metapackages depend rather then recommend
packages they are meant to pull in?
The statement that metapackages depend from packages is
Wolodja Wentland babi...@gmail.com (30/08/2011):
It is my impression that the problems mentioned in my initial mail can
be solved by changing metapackages (like those mentioned by Cyril in
his reply) to use Recommends instead of Depends.
I am, however, not entirely sure if there are any good
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 11:27:48AM +0100, Wolodja Wentland wrote:
is there a specific reason why metapackages depend rather then recommend
packages they are meant to pull in?
I never meant to imply that *all* metapackages use Depends.
For my perception of your sentence at least a some
On 30/08/2011 16:46, Andreas Tille wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 11:27:48AM +0100, Wolodja Wentland wrote:
It is my impression that the problems mentioned in my initial mail can be
solved by changing metapackages (like those mentioned by Cyril in his
reply) to use Recommends instead of
that the distinction between required packages and
recommendations is lost if the (large?) metapackages use Recommends for both
types of dependencies. I see metapackages as convenience packages that allow
the user to easily specify a set of related packages and would argue that what
is really needed for, say
Let me say this (i'm working on a new tsort you can say - but slowly as it's
not my day job).
if Virtual package is the same as meta package... (which ends up being a simple lookup before
package list ordering / dropping)
Why worry about Recommends or Suggests ? Only after dpkg develops a
. It is in
particular one that solves the problems without the need to introduce new
package fields, change packaging tools or their semantics.
If you think some dependencies in those metapackages are unneeded or too
strong, you're welcome to open a wishlist bug against them.
For xfce4, while I'm open
but if you mean strict meta as in it has no files but depends on real
specific libraried packages ...
as far as I know strict meta are already well versioned and any package, such as perl, acts as a
meta in some way by depending on other versions of packages to fully install - in the sense of
Hi all,
is there a specific reason why metapackages depend rather then recommend
packages they are meant to pull in?
The rationale behind this question is [0] that we see a plethora of users in
#debian who ask questions like:
Why did apt remove all my system??⸘one!one!eleven!
and we
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 04:40:30PM +0100, Wolodja Wentland wrote:
they decided to remove one of (typically) gnome's dependencies, which
caused the metapackage to be removed as well.
That also causes an effect of GNOME gets removed! even without any
additional autoremoved packages :(
--
WBR,
17 matches
Mail list logo
