Bug#827562: [Pkg-xfce-devel] Bug#827562: task-xfce-desktop: Depends on light-locker Should Be Recommends
On Mon, 2016-06-20 at 12:15 -0700, Leo L. Schwab wrote: > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 12:54:15PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Sun, 2016-06-19 at 14:35 -0700, Leo L. Schwab wrote: > > > When you install task-xfce-desktop, from a dependency standpoint, it > > > becomes the "parent" of all things XFCE -- the task is marked as manually > > > installed; its dependencies are marked as automatically installed, > > [...] > > > > That's no longer the case. APT does not to do this when the depending > > package is in section 'metapackages' or 'oldlibs'. > > > Cool; I didn't know that. (Where's that written down?) It only seems to be documented in the changelog. The behaviour is controlled by the APT::Never-MarkAuto-Sections and APT::Move-Autobit-Sections variables, but those aren't documented in apt.conf(5). > task-xfce-desktop is in the section 'tasks'. Do the same rules > apply there? Ah, I had assumed tasks were in 'metapackages'. This ought to apply to 'tasks' too, but doesn't. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Never put off till tomorrow what you can avoid all together. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#827562: [Pkg-xfce-devel] Bug#827562: task-xfce-desktop: Depends on light-locker Should Be Recommends
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 12:54:15PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Sun, 2016-06-19 at 14:35 -0700, Leo L. Schwab wrote: > > When you install task-xfce-desktop, from a dependency standpoint, it > > becomes the "parent" of all things XFCE -- the task is marked as manually > > installed; its dependencies are marked as automatically installed, > [...] > > That's no longer the case. APT does not to do this when the depending > package is in section 'metapackages' or 'oldlibs'. > Cool; I didn't know that. (Where's that written down?) task-xfce-desktop is in the section 'tasks'. Do the same rules apply there? Schwab
Bug#827562: [Pkg-xfce-devel] Bug#827562: task-xfce-desktop: Depends on light-locker Should Be Recommends
On Sun, 2016-06-19 at 14:35 -0700, Leo L. Schwab wrote: > On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 11:24:13AM +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote: > > So yes, we *want* light-locker in the default Debian Xfce desktop. But that > > doesn't mean you can't use something else with the Xfce desktop environment > > under debian: just remove light-locker. Yes, it'll remove task-xfce-desktop > > (except that I've never seen it installed after a standard installer run, > > but > > I don't do that very often either), but task-xfce-desktop is just a > > metapackage anyway. > > > > I hope the position is clearer now? > > > Your position is entirely clear and reasonable. It's the > implementation I'm having trouble with. > > When you install task-xfce-desktop, from a dependency standpoint, it > becomes the "parent" of all things XFCE -- the task is marked as manually > installed; its dependencies are marked as automatically installed, [...] That's no longer the case. APT does not to do this when the depending package is in section 'metapackages' or 'oldlibs'. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Never put off till tomorrow what you can avoid all together. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#827562: [Pkg-xfce-devel] Bug#827562: task-xfce-desktop: Depends on light-locker Should Be Recommends
On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 11:24:13AM +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote: > So yes, we *want* light-locker in the default Debian Xfce desktop. But that > doesn't mean you can't use something else with the Xfce desktop environment > under debian: just remove light-locker. Yes, it'll remove task-xfce-desktop > (except that I've never seen it installed after a standard installer run, but > I don't do that very often either), but task-xfce-desktop is just a > metapackage anyway. > > I hope the position is clearer now? > Your position is entirely clear and reasonable. It's the implementation I'm having trouble with. When you install task-xfce-desktop, from a dependency standpoint, it becomes the "parent" of all things XFCE -- the task is marked as manually installed; its dependencies are marked as automatically installed, and will be deleted by the package manager when everything that depends on them goes away. If you then delete task-xfce-desktop, all its dependencies lose their parent, and aptitude happily cleans up all of XFCE. I admit I'm walking off the edge of my knowledge of Debian policy and implementation arcana here. It may be that Debian 'task' packages are treated specially, and packages installed via a 'task' aren't marked as automatically installed. If that's indeed the case, then my bug report is moot. If not, then I believe more thought is called for here. Schwab
Bug#827562: [Pkg-xfce-devel] Bug#827562: task-xfce-desktop: Depends on light-locker Should Be Recommends
On dim., 2016-06-19 at 02:01 -0700, Leo L. Schwab wrote: > On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 10:46:55AM +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote: > > task-xfce-desktop is for installation time, so here Depends is correct. We > > want light-locker by default, but people are free to remove it afterwards > > if > > they know what they do. > > > Uh, no, because when you go to delete light-locker, aptitude stops > you because deleting that hard dependency will break task-xfce-desktop. Except that (unless that's actually wrong, but then noone told me in years) task-xfce-desktop is here for install time. It's what we (the Xfce task maintainers, which are also the pkg-xfce maintainers, which is actually just me, but eh…) define as the Debian Xfce desktop. So yes, we *want* light-locker in the default Debian Xfce desktop. But that doesn't mean you can't use something else with the Xfce desktop environment under debian: just remove light-locker. Yes, it'll remove task-xfce-desktop (except that I've never seen it installed after a standard installer run, but I don't do that very often either), but task-xfce-desktop is just a metapackage anyway. I hope the position is clearer now? Regards, -- Yves-Alexis signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#827562: [Pkg-xfce-devel] Bug#827562: task-xfce-desktop: Depends on light-locker Should Be Recommends
On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 10:46:55AM +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> task-xfce-desktop is for installation time, so here Depends is correct. We
> want light-locker by default, but people are free to remove it afterwards if
> they know what they do.
>
Uh, no, because when you go to delete light-locker, aptitude stops
you because deleting that hard dependency will break task-xfce-desktop.
It sounds like what task-xfce-desktop actually wants to do is depend
on a meta-package ('x-display-locker'?), of which both light-locker and
xscreensaver are members. Then the user could swap out display lockers
without breaking task-xfce-desktop's requirement that there be *a* display
locker of some sort.
Schwab
Bug#827562: [Pkg-xfce-devel] Bug#827562: task-xfce-desktop: Depends on light-locker Should Be Recommends
On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 08:57:44AM +0200, Christian PERRIER wrote: > > task-xfce-desktop is for installation time, so here Depends is correct. We > > want light-locker by default, but people are free to remove it afterwards if > > they know what they do. I still don't see why this cannot be achieved by recommends, which are installed by default… -- cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#827562: [Pkg-xfce-devel] Bug#827562: task-xfce-desktop: Depends on light-locker Should Be Recommends
tags 827562 wontfix thanks Quoting Yves-Alexis Perez (cor...@debian.org): > > > I suggest that task-xfce-desktop reduce the dependency on > > > light-locker from Depends to Recommends. > > task-xfce-desktop is for installation time, so here Depends is correct. We > want light-locker by default, but people are free to remove it afterwards if > they know what they do. ...which means we should mark this bug as "wontfix" (or close it, whatever solution is preferred). Thanks for your input. That makes things clear. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#827562: [Pkg-xfce-devel] Bug#827562: task-xfce-desktop: Depends on light-locker Should Be Recommends
On sam., 2016-06-18 at 07:25 +0200, Christian PERRIER wrote: > Xfce people, could you please bring some input on that issue? Sure. > > TIA > > Quoting Leo L. Schwab (ew...@ewhac.org): > > Package: task-xfce-desktop > > Version: 3.35 > > Severity: normal > > > > Dear Maintainer, > > > > task-xfce-desktop has grown a dependency on the package > > light-locker, which is billed as a lightweight alternative to > > xscreensaver. > > I suspect this is to track a similar change in xfce4-session, which > > recently > > also added a dependency for light-locker. Indeed, we replaced xscreensaver by light-locker. > > > > However, xfce4-session only Recommends light-locker; it does not > > Depends on it. light-locker at the moment doesn't seem to play well with > > xscreensaver, Well, obviously, they have the same role, they can't run both at one. > > and is something of a nuisance. For those of us who prefer > > xscreensaver, light-locker gets in the way. Then you can just remove light-locker (that's why it's only a Recommends in xfce4-session, and not a Depends). > > > > I suggest that task-xfce-desktop reduce the dependency on > > light-locker from Depends to Recommends. task-xfce-desktop is for installation time, so here Depends is correct. We want light-locker by default, but people are free to remove it afterwards if they know what they do. Regards, -- Yves-Alexis signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
