Re: [Fwd: major problem with gnome-games dependency]
Scribit Kevin Mark dies 13/10/2005 hora 02:26: > I was thinking of a feature that would show 'recommends' but add a > line line explaining what installing package X would add to the > currently selected package. > > [...] > > if this metadata could be added to the package data file it could be > utilized by some program(not sure which or how). I think Debian should develop a general metadata solution for APT. There are already very powerful tools to handle metadata, like the RDF data model, it's serializations (RDF/XML, N3, etc.) and tools associated (Raptor, Rasqal and Redland already packaged in Debian, including sarge). With a generic metadata infrastructure in the APT tools, it wouldn't be a pain anymore to extend APT: debtags could be achieved with it, dependency explanation also. With a separation between the core APT features, like installation end dependency handling, and the metadata addon, it could also be possible to fetch metadata elsewhere: one could have it's own debtags metadata, or some teams of DD or users could publish specific debtags (e.g. for parents that don't want violent games on their system...). Generically, Nowhere man -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Fwd: major problem with gnome-games dependency]
Hi, Kevin: El Jueves, 13 Octubre 2005 09:03, Kevin Mark escribió: [...] > Hi Thijs and fellow DDs, > something just sprang into my brain as you mentioned the 'm$ office > thingy'. gnome is a meta-package and someone wondered how he could > install 'his' gnome. here is a scenerio: > > apt-get install gnome > (gnome installs as usuall, but creates a configuration file--blank at > first?) > > dpkg-reconfigure gnome > (this presents a debconf-like screen that displays the basic gnome > packages and also displays optional gnome packages with select/unselect > boxes. after the optional packages are selected, the choices are noted > in a configuration file, and the unselected apps would than be > a)marked for removal in the status file so that the next upgrade cycle > would remove them > or > b)removed by 'apt-get remove' > not sure if I need "a AND b" or "a OR b". > > apt-get install gnome > (now the apt front-end would read the meta-package configuration file to > determine what to install/upgrade. Thus you get to have 'your' gnome and > upgradeing gnome would only install what you want thus saving time and > effort) Yeah! It remmembers quite a lot the localepurge package behaviour. When you install it it asks you if you want to be informed about new locales and when new locales do appear a menu gives you the chance to check in which man/info/etc pages do you want installed in your system. Something like this could go for metapackages: apt-get install gnome (...) [debconf menu] Gnome is a metapackage made up of these bunch of packages. Choose the ones your really want (with all packages starting as checked; maybe submenus for different categories and these submenus depending on the debconf "chatting" level chosen -critical, high, low...). Then the first poster would check-out all gnome-games, then [ok] Do you want to be informed about new [Gnome] packages added [Yes/no]. This way, when on next release new Gnome is made out of new packages, he will have again the choice to tell which ones he wants. -- SALUD, Jesús
Re: [Fwd: major problem with gnome-games dependency]
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 03:35:19PM -0300, Ben Armstrong wrote: > This property of metapackages has always irked me. If I install gnome > and then remove gnome-games, I won't automatically benefit in the next > release from any other goodies the gnome maintainers have added to > "gnome" package. There was a similar problem with task- metapackages in potato -- if any package in the task became unreleasable, the whole task would too. We fixed this by moving from metapackages to fields in the Packages.gz file. There's no reason why a similar solution can't be used to achieve the sort of behaviour you want. In fact, the debtags "Tag:" fields may already be suitable for that. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Fwd: major problem with gnome-games dependency]
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 10:41:09PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 22:00 +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > > The main things that this thread shows me, is that it is *not* immediately > > clear to people not too familiar with Debian that the removal of the 'gnome' > > package will not have *any* effect on what actual software is actually > > installed > > on your system. > > Indeed, and this is because the meta-package is not a really good tool > for this job. It has to depend on all packages in order to install them > all, so if you remove one component you get the confusing message that > you need to remove "gnome" aswell. > > As most of us I'm not too affectionally engaged with our friends from > Redmond, but they've solved this kind of problem in a simple and elegant > way in the installation of MS Office. If you check the box in front of > PowerPoint, you get the whole thing, or uncheck it and don't install it. > But users who want to customize a bit, can click the + or arrow or > whatever in front of PowerPoint and are offered the choice to > (de-)select many of the sub-components of the item. > > I'm not sure whether something like this is already possible, but in my > opinion would be a good way to offer this kind of choice during the > installation. > > > regards, > Thijs Hi Thijs and fellow DDs, something just sprang into my brain as you mentioned the 'm$ office thingy'. gnome is a meta-package and someone wondered how he could install 'his' gnome. here is a scenerio: apt-get install gnome (gnome installs as usuall, but creates a configuration file--blank at first?) dpkg-reconfigure gnome (this presents a debconf-like screen that displays the basic gnome packages and also displays optional gnome packages with select/unselect boxes. after the optional packages are selected, the choices are noted in a configuration file, and the unselected apps would than be a)marked for removal in the status file so that the next upgrade cycle would remove them or b)removed by 'apt-get remove' not sure if I need "a AND b" or "a OR b". apt-get install gnome (now the apt front-end would read the meta-package configuration file to determine what to install/upgrade. Thus you get to have 'your' gnome and upgradeing gnome would only install what you want thus saving time and effort) I'm sure that are 1000 unknown scenerios of how this could lead to breakage, but on first blush it seem an interesting idea. Cheers, Kev -- counter.li.org #238656 -- goto counter.li.org and be counted! `$' $' $ $ _ ,d$$$g$ ,d$$$b. $,d$$$b`$' g$b $,d$$b ,$P' `$ ,$P' `Y$ $$' `$ $ "' `$ $$' `$ $$ $ $$g$ $ $ $ ,$P"" $ $$ `$g. ,$$ `$$._ _. $ _,g$P $ `$b. ,$$ $$ `Y$$P'$. `YP $$$P"' ,$. `Y$$P'$ $. ,$. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Fwd: major problem with gnome-games dependency]
On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 02:26:04AM -0400, Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 12:34:21PM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 08:32:35PM +0200, "Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL > > PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > > > Would it help having our metapackages use all Recommends instead of > > > Depends? > > > > No, because people like to turn off the installation of recommendations > > and then file bugs when major functionality is missing from packages :-/. > > > > Daniel > Hi DDs, > I was thinking of a feature that would show 'recommends' but add a line > line explaining what installing package X would add to the currently > selected package. It would be helpful for the users to know that. > > Not every users is a guru and has hours on-end to figure out how > packages are related. It would be a great user help to see a bit of info > so that when you install/upgrade some app says 'hey if you want this > feature, install foo'. > > Although I'm not sure which app(frontend: synaptic,aptitude,..) > should/could add this feature. here would be possible output: > > ... There's a much simpler approach to this problem, which is to explain recommendations and suggestions in the package's description. Some packages do this already, but I don't think there's even a recommendation one way or the other (e.g., in the best practices documents). Daniel signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Fwd: major problem with gnome-games dependency]
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 12:34:21PM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote: > On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 08:32:35PM +0200, "Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 12:10:22PM -0600, Arthur H. Edwards wrote: > > > I work at a government laboratory where computer games are prohibited. I > > > also use the gnome desktop. When I try to remove gnome-games apt wanst > > > to remove gnome because gnome depends on gnome-games. This is really a > > > show-stopper for government use of Linux. Also, I would think that the > > > dependency should work the other way: gnome-games should depend on gnome. > > > > I've always wanted apt to be able to distinguish between a task and a > > metapackage; something like “I want GNOME, but without the games and > > Evolution, please”... > > > > Would it help having our metapackages use all Recommends instead of Depends? > > No, because people like to turn off the installation of recommendations > and then file bugs when major functionality is missing from packages :-/. > > Daniel Hi DDs, I was thinking of a feature that would show 'recommends' but add a line line explaining what installing package X would add to the currently selected package. It would be helpful for the users to know that. Not every users is a guru and has hours on-end to figure out how packages are related. It would be a great user help to see a bit of info so that when you install/upgrade some app says 'hey if you want this feature, install foo'. Although I'm not sure which app(frontend: synaptic,aptitude,..) should/could add this feature. here would be possible output: - % foobar xine-ui mozilla-firefox package description -- --- aalib1 extends by adding the ability to output movies in ascii art format mozilla-firefox-gnome-support extends by allowing it to use Gnome-vfs protocol handlers latex-xft-fonts extends by adding support for MathML documents if this metadata could be added to the package data file it could be utilized by some program(not sure which or how). I'm not sure if its as simple as using the short description as it doesn't always contain this info. And if its contained in the long description, it cant be easily displayed as a single-line concise description. I guess a basic app could be created to do what is show above. One of the problem I (and I'm sure others) have is that I see 'recommends' and wondering exactly why something is recommended and what functionality it extends. I know the pkg maintainer know, but us users would like a hint why they think its a 'recommends'. So, is there a specific package that I can file a wishlist bug? any 'recommend'ation welcome, cheers, Kev -- counter.li.org #238656 -- goto counter.li.org and be counted! `$' $' $ $ _ ,d$$$g$ ,d$$$b. $,d$$$b`$' g$b $,d$$b ,$P' `$ ,$P' `Y$ $$' `$ $ "' `$ $$' `$ $$ $ $$g$ $ $ $ ,$P"" $ $$ `$g. ,$$ `$$._ _. $ _,g$P $ `$b. ,$$ $$ `Y$$P'$. `YP $$$P"' ,$. `Y$$P'$ $. ,$. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Fwd: major problem with gnome-games dependency]
Le mardi 11 octobre 2005 à 12:10 -0600, Arthur H. Edwards a écrit : > > I work at a government laboratory where computer games are prohibited. I > also use the gnome desktop. When I try to remove gnome-games apt wanst > to remove gnome because gnome depends on gnome-games. This is really a > show-stopper for government use of Linux. Also, I would think that the > dependency should work the other way: gnome-games should depend on gnome. As a workaround, if you just chmod 700 /usr/games, it should be fine, as games won't be accessible by users. They shouldn't even appear in the menu in this case. Regards, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [Fwd: major problem with gnome-games dependency]
On Thursday 13 October 2005 00:15, Daniel Burrows wrote: > I just pushed out a darcs patch implementing a feature I've meant to > include for a while; namely a screen that shows you the targets of > unfulfilled recommendations. Nice one! pgpOgS9topSHf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Fwd: major problem with gnome-games dependency]
On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 04:44:32PM +0200, Shot - Piotr Szotkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > > In other words recommendations mean: "This package does not actually > > NEED the listed packages, but it is unlikely you will want to install > > this package without the listed package." > > Given that auto-pulling in of recommendations is the first thing I turn > off in aptitude after system installs - is there a simple way of telling > aptitude 'hey, I changed my mind, mark all packages recommended by the > currenly installed packages up for installation'? > > I wonder how many extra packages I'd have to install to 'catch up'. I just pushed out a darcs patch implementing a feature I've meant to include for a while; namely a screen that shows you the targets of unfulfilled recommendations. Daniel signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Fwd: major problem with gnome-games dependency]
On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 11:48:54AM +0200, David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > Well, the problem is the widespread misuse of Recommends and Depends. > People have a tendency to use Depends where a Recommends would be > enough, and a Recommends where a Suggests would do the trick. > > And until this is corrected, a lot of us won't enable default > installation of Recommendations, simply because our systems get > unnecessarily bloated. I was going to dispute this, but then I took a look at packages held on my system by Recommends alone. It's not pretty. muttprint recommends slrn? tetex-bin recommends texi2html?? w3m-el recommends wv??? And that's just the first three packages I looked at! Daniel signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Fwd: major problem with gnome-games dependency]
On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 04:25:05PM +1000, Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 03:13:30AM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote: > > Do not forget, though, that with aptitude becoming the prefered tool > > for package management (over plain apt-get), this is no longer true. > > "aptitude install gnome" will mark all of its dependencies as "auto", > > i.e. just installed because of a dependency. Which means that > > "aptitude remove gnome" will want to remove all the dependencies _for > > real_, unless they have been previously marked as "noauto" by hand. > > What will "aptitude remove gnome-games" do? Remove gnome, leaving the deps > behind, or remove gnome and then remove it's deps because they're auto? It'll remove both gnome and its dependencies (assuming nothing else depends on them). Daniel signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Fwd: major problem with gnome-games dependency]
Hello. Joe Smith: > In other words recommendations mean: "This package does not actually > NEED the listed packages, but it is unlikely you will want to install > this package without the listed package." Given that auto-pulling in of recommendations is the first thing I turn off in aptitude after system installs - is there a simple way of telling aptitude 'hey, I changed my mind, mark all packages recommended by the currenly installed packages up for installation'? I wonder how many extra packages I'd have to install to 'catch up'. Cheers, -- Shot (who wondered one day why timidity won't play MIDI files, only to discover there's a Recommends: freepats dependency) -- I'll tell you what war is about. You've got to kill people, and when you've killed enough they stop fighting. -- Curtis LeMay == http://shot.pl/hovercraft/ === http://shot.pl/1/125/ === signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Fwd: major problem with gnome-games dependency]
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 04:21:30PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote: > > "Frans Pop" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >On Tuesday 11 October 2005 21:34, Daniel Burrows wrote: > >> No, because people like to turn off the installation of > >>recommendations > > > >Or yes, because it offers more flexibility to people who have a basic idea > >of what they are doing. > > Exactly. Unless you plan to examine each and every reccomendation of each > and every package you install then you should not turn off reccomendation > installation. > > Recoomendations are intended to be weak depends. In other words > recommendations mean: "This package does not actually NEED the listed > packages, but it is unlikely you will want to install this package without > the listed package." An even better way to think of it is a Depends that > can be overridden without apt complaining. Well, the problem is the widespread misuse of Recommends and Depends. People have a tendency to use Depends where a Recommends would be enough, and a Recommends where a Suggests would do the trick. And until this is corrected, a lot of us won't enable default installation of Recommendations, simply because our systems get unnecessarily bloated. Regards: David Weinehall -- /) David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /) Rime on my window (\ // ~ // Diamond-white roses of fire // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/ Beautiful hoar-frost (/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: major problem with gnome-games dependency]
[Daniel Burrows] > you'd have to do something like "aptitude keep ~Rdepends:^gnome$". Too arcane. (: I've occasionally wanted a simple command in aptitude for "remove the auto flag from all the depends of this package" - not only for metapackages but also for dummy upgrade packages. Another way to look at it is a combined command for "remove this package but arrange not to remove anything it pulled in". This seems a bit better to me than unconditionally keeping dependencies of removed metapackages, as Bug #328441 suggests. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Fwd: major problem with gnome-games dependency]
Ben Armstrong wrote: > This property of metapackages has always irked me. If I install > gnome and then remove gnome-games, I won't automatically benefit in > the next release from any other goodies the gnome maintainers have > added to "gnome" package. Amen brother. Why aren't metapackages using Recommends instead of Depends? It seems like that would solve this, at least for us aptitude users. brian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: major problem with gnome-games dependency]
On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 03:13:30AM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote: > [CC'ing the aptitude maintainer, mainly for the last paragraph.] > > * Jeroen van Wolffelaar [Tue, 11 Oct 2005 22:00:22 +0200]: > > > The main things that this thread shows me, is that it is *not* immediately > > clear to people not too familiar with Debian that the removal of the 'gnome' > > package will not have *any* effect on what actual software is actually > > installed > > on your system. > > Do not forget, though, that with aptitude becoming the prefered tool > for package management (over plain apt-get), this is no longer true. > "aptitude install gnome" will mark all of its dependencies as "auto", > i.e. just installed because of a dependency. Which means that > "aptitude remove gnome" will want to remove all the dependencies _for > real_, unless they have been previously marked as "noauto" by hand. What will "aptitude remove gnome-games" do? Remove gnome, leaving the deps behind, or remove gnome and then remove it's deps because they're auto? - Matt
Re: [Fwd: major problem with gnome-games dependency]
Adeodato Simó wrote:
> As mentioned in [1], we've been considering switching to Recommends
> for KDE metapackges, and mention in the description about the use of
> --with-recommends.
If you do that you will make the desktop task no longer install an
appropriate amount of kde[2]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/src/tasksel>grep recommends tasksel.pl
my $ret=system("aptitude", "--without-recommends", "-y", "install",
@aptitude_install) >> 8;
It's very easy to end up with a recommends chain that pulls in all of X
when you wanted something simple like cups. At least that kind of thing
was common when I turned it off in tasksel.
Some other good reasons not to use recommends for metapackage would
include those of us who have aptitude configured not to take recommends
by default, or probably anyone who wants to use synaptic.
--
see shy jo
[2] Not that it currently installs kde, since it's broken, but anyway.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: [Fwd: major problem with gnome-games dependency]
On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 03:13:30AM +0200, Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > As mentioned in [1], we've been considering switching to Recommends > for KDE metapackges, and mention in the description about the use of > --with-recommends. > > What perhaps would be really best, though, would be some kind of > special handling for metapackages from aptitude et al. For example > (just the first I could think of), assume --with-recommends for > packages that have "Metapackage: yes". But this leaves the problem of > how to detect on upgrades if a recommended but not installed package > was uninstalled by the user, or newly introduced in the new version. > Daniel, do you have any comments on this? Is there a bug open about > handling of metapackages, or perhaps would be a good idea to open one? The issue of recommendations appearing in new versions is a general problem, not one specific to metapackages. I have some code that tries to detect new recommendations, but I haven't actually used it as a replacement for the default rule of "only recommendations of newly installed packages are important". I need to talk to the apt developers about how to integrate this (last time I checked apt changes were needed to get it working), then test it. In addition to forcing the program to follow recommendations, the other thing to deal with is the interaction between metapackages and "cruft removal". I think you could deal with that using the rule that "when a metapackage is placed into manual mode, so are all its (pre)dependencies and recommendations". This would make it annoying to put a metapackage back into automatic mode, but it's safe and not hard to I don't remember if there are any bugs open about metapackages, but they aren't especially useful until we have a way of formally identifying metapackages; e.g., by adding a "Metapackage: yes" header in the control file. On the other hand, debtags does flag metapackages, and I can probably work with that for the time being. Daniel signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Fwd: major problem with gnome-games dependency]
> As mentioned in [1] [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2005/04/msg00070.html -- Adeodato Simó EM: asp16 [ykwim] alu.ua.es | PK: DA6AE621 He has never been known to use a word that might send a reader to the dictionary. -- William Faulkner (about Ernest Hemingway) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: major problem with gnome-games dependency]
[CC'ing the aptitude maintainer, mainly for the last paragraph.] * Jeroen van Wolffelaar [Tue, 11 Oct 2005 22:00:22 +0200]: > The main things that this thread shows me, is that it is *not* immediately > clear to people not too familiar with Debian that the removal of the 'gnome' > package will not have *any* effect on what actual software is actually > installed > on your system. Do not forget, though, that with aptitude becoming the prefered tool for package management (over plain apt-get), this is no longer true. "aptitude install gnome" will mark all of its dependencies as "auto", i.e. just installed because of a dependency. Which means that "aptitude remove gnome" will want to remove all the dependencies _for real_, unless they have been previously marked as "noauto" by hand. If grasping the concept "removing a metapackage won't remove the dependencies" was already difficult, grasping the whole auto/noauto story can be... ykwim. Which, IMV, means that the user should not have to care (much) about that. * * * As mentioned in [1], we've been considering switching to Recommends for KDE metapackges, and mention in the description about the use of --with-recommends. What perhaps would be really best, though, would be some kind of special handling for metapackages from aptitude et al. For example (just the first I could think of), assume --with-recommends for packages that have "Metapackage: yes". But this leaves the problem of how to detect on upgrades if a recommended but not installed package was uninstalled by the user, or newly introduced in the new version. Daniel, do you have any comments on this? Is there a bug open about handling of metapackages, or perhaps would be a good idea to open one? Cheers, -- Adeodato Simó EM: asp16 [ykwim] alu.ua.es | PK: DA6AE621 The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: major problem with gnome-games dependency]
On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 22:00 +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > The main things that this thread shows me, is that it is *not* immediately > clear to people not too familiar with Debian that the removal of the 'gnome' > package will not have *any* effect on what actual software is actually > installed > on your system. Indeed, and this is because the meta-package is not a really good tool for this job. It has to depend on all packages in order to install them all, so if you remove one component you get the confusing message that you need to remove "gnome" aswell. As most of us I'm not too affectionally engaged with our friends from Redmond, but they've solved this kind of problem in a simple and elegant way in the installation of MS Office. If you check the box in front of PowerPoint, you get the whole thing, or uncheck it and don't install it. But users who want to customize a bit, can click the + or arrow or whatever in front of PowerPoint and are offered the choice to (de-)select many of the sub-components of the item. I'm not sure whether something like this is already possible, but in my opinion would be a good way to offer this kind of choice during the installation. regards, Thijs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: major problem with gnome-games dependency]
"Frans Pop" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tuesday 11 October 2005 21:34, Daniel Burrows wrote: No, because people like to turn off the installation of recommendations Or yes, because it offers more flexibility to people who have a basic idea of what they are doing. Exactly. Unless you plan to examine each and every reccomendation of each and every package you install then you should not turn off reccomendation installation. Recoomendations are intended to be weak depends. In other words recommendations mean: "This package does not actually NEED the listed packages, but it is unlikely you will want to install this package without the listed package." An even better way to think of it is a Depends that can be overridden without apt complaining. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: major problem with gnome-games dependency]
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 09:49:49PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > On Tuesday 11 October 2005 21:34, Daniel Burrows wrote: > > No, because people like to turn off the installation of > > recommendations > > Or yes, because it offers more flexibility to people who have a basic idea > of what they are doing. Those can simply install the pacakges they want. It isn't rocket science. > > and then file bugs when major functionality is missing > > from packages :-/. > > Bugs that result from stupidity or being clueless can be closed. Well, if the meta packages description is: "Gives you the full GNOME suite with all associated programs", which is minus phrasing what the actual description is, then a recommends would simply by plainly wrong. If you don't want the "The GNOME Desktop Environment, with extra components", don't install gnome. With today's size of a typical harddisk, for 99% of the people such a package would be exactly what they want. If you have specialized requirements, like the thread starter, you can put together your own set of packages. Or you can use debtags, to install "desktop-environment::gnome && !type::game" (pseudo-syntax). The main things that this thread shows me, is that it is *not* immediately clear to people not too familiar with Debian that the removal of the 'gnome' package will not have *any* effect on what actual software is actually installed on your system. --Jeroen -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: major problem with gnome-games dependency]
On Tuesday 11 October 2005 21:34, Daniel Burrows wrote: > No, because people like to turn off the installation of > recommendations Or yes, because it offers more flexibility to people who have a basic idea of what they are doing. > and then file bugs when major functionality is missing > from packages :-/. Bugs that result from stupidity or being clueless can be closed. pgp5pR3X82nTS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Fwd: major problem with gnome-games dependency]
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 08:32:35PM +0200, "Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 12:10:22PM -0600, Arthur H. Edwards wrote: > > I work at a government laboratory where computer games are prohibited. I > > also use the gnome desktop. When I try to remove gnome-games apt wanst > > to remove gnome because gnome depends on gnome-games. This is really a > > show-stopper for government use of Linux. Also, I would think that the > > dependency should work the other way: gnome-games should depend on gnome. > > I've always wanted apt to be able to distinguish between a task and a > metapackage; something like “I want GNOME, but without the games and > Evolution, please”... > > Would it help having our metapackages use all Recommends instead of Depends? No, because people like to turn off the installation of recommendations and then file bugs when major functionality is missing from packages :-/. Daniel signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Fwd: major problem with gnome-games dependency]
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 11:33:50AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > "Arthur H. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > First, we don't play the games, but they are inventoried, and they can't > > be there. Second, I can, indeed, remove gnome and re-install individual > > packages and waste a fair amount of time. Government computers are a > > fairly large group and I would think that you might want to facilitate > > the use of Linux and of Debian on them by swapping the dependency. If > > not you will be telling each of us to embark on a Rube Goldberg > > installation process. > > Removing the "gnome" package does not cause you to remove the > individual packages it depended on. It does if you're using aptitude; you'd have to do something like "aptitude keep ~Rdepends:^gnome$". (but not if you're using experimental, 'cos that'll send it into an infinite memory-eating loop...great, another bug to fix) Daniel signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Fwd: major problem with gnome-games dependency]
On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 20:07 +0100, Ross Burton wrote: > That is what gnome-core is for: just enough of GNOME to be usable, but > no real apps beyond EoG and gedit. Purposefully created for people who > want to use GNOME, don't want to install all packages manually, but want > some control over what extra packages are installed. $ apt-cache show-differing-dependencies gnome-core gnome Dependencies only in gnome-core: Depends: ... Suggests: ... ... Dependencies only in gnome ... But in the absence of such a feature, I can't tell what I'd be missing if I only installed gnome-core. Ben -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: major problem with gnome-games dependency]
On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 20:32 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: > On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 12:10:22PM -0600, Arthur H. Edwards wrote: > > I work at a government laboratory where computer games are prohibited. I > > also use the gnome desktop. When I try to remove gnome-games apt wanst > > to remove gnome because gnome depends on gnome-games. This is really a > > show-stopper for government use of Linux. Also, I would think that the > > dependency should work the other way: gnome-games should depend on gnome. > > I've always wanted apt to be able to distinguish between a task and a > metapackage; something like “I want GNOME, but without the games and > Evolution, please”... That is what gnome-core is for: just enough of GNOME to be usable, but no real apps beyond EoG and gedit. Purposefully created for people who want to use GNOME, don't want to install all packages manually, but want some control over what extra packages are installed. Ross -- Ross Burton mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www: http://www.burtonini.com./ PGP Fingerprint: 1A21 F5B0 D8D0 CFE3 81D4 E25A 2D09 E447 D0B4 33DF
Re: [Fwd: major problem with gnome-games dependency]
On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 11:51 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > I think the question is: do you want all the goodies or you don't want > all the goodies? Well, the problem is, when "all the goodies" is a significant number of packages, it is tedious to have to collect them all myself. > I would not object to a meta package gnome-without-games if the gnome > maintainers want to add one. And what about the user who said "and evolution"? So far we have gnome-without-games, gnome-without-games-and-evolution, and (logically) gnome-without-evolution. Care to add a few more exceptions and all of their permutations? :) > I would love a way to have a negative way of handling the whole darn > thing. I thought tasks were supposed to get rid of metapackages > anyway. Sure. So did I. Ben -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: major problem with gnome-games dependency]
Ben Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This property of metapackages has always irked me. If I install gnome > and then remove gnome-games, I won't automatically benefit in the next > release from any other goodies the gnome maintainers have added to > "gnome" package. I think the question is: do you want all the goodies or you don't want all the goodies? I would not object to a meta package gnome-without-games if the gnome maintainers want to add one. I would love a way to have a negative way of handling the whole darn thing. I thought tasks were supposed to get rid of metapackages anyway. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: major problem with gnome-games dependency]
On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 11:20 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > It should be an easy matter not to play the games even when they are > installed. Regardless, the "gnome" package is not necessary for the > system; it is just a meta-package that depends on all the > gnome-related packages. If you don't want all the gnome-related > packages, then you can skil installing the "gnome" package and just > choose the ones you want. This property of metapackages has always irked me. If I install gnome and then remove gnome-games, I won't automatically benefit in the next release from any other goodies the gnome maintainers have added to "gnome" package. Of course, the user could use the "equivs" package to make a fake gnome-games to satisfy the dependency, but the dire warnings in the description of the equivs package (assuming the user even knows equivs exists) are going to discourage most users from trying this. Ben -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: major problem with gnome-games dependency]
"Arthur H. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > First, we don't play the games, but they are inventoried, and they can't > be there. Second, I can, indeed, remove gnome and re-install individual > packages and waste a fair amount of time. Government computers are a > fairly large group and I would think that you might want to facilitate > the use of Linux and of Debian on them by swapping the dependency. If > not you will be telling each of us to embark on a Rube Goldberg > installation process. Removing the "gnome" package does not cause you to remove the individual packages it depended on. Swapping the dependency is wrong; gnome-games does not depend on all of gnome. The purpose of the "gnome" package is just to be a placeholder for "all gnome-related packages". Deleting that package does not delete the individual packages that it depended on. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: major problem with gnome-games dependency]
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 12:10:22PM -0600, Arthur H. Edwards wrote: > I work at a government laboratory where computer games are prohibited. I > also use the gnome desktop. When I try to remove gnome-games apt wanst > to remove gnome because gnome depends on gnome-games. This is really a > show-stopper for government use of Linux. Also, I would think that the > dependency should work the other way: gnome-games should depend on gnome. I've always wanted apt to be able to distinguish between a task and a metapackage; something like “I want GNOME, but without the games and Evolution, please”... Would it help having our metapackages use all Recommends instead of Depends? /* Steinar */ -- Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: major problem with gnome-games dependency]
First, we don't play the games, but they are inventoried, and they can't be there. Second, I can, indeed, remove gnome and re-install individual packages and waste a fair amount of time. Government computers are a fairly large group and I would think that you might want to facilitate the use of Linux and of Debian on them by swapping the dependency. If not you will be telling each of us to embark on a Rube Goldberg installation process. Art Edwards Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: "Arthur H. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I work at a government laboratory where computer games are prohibited. I also use the gnome desktop. When I try to remove gnome-games apt wanst to remove gnome because gnome depends on gnome-games. This is really a show-stopper for government use of Linux. Also, I would think that the dependency should work the other way: gnome-games should depend on gnome. It should be an easy matter not to play the games even when they are installed. Regardless, the "gnome" package is not necessary for the system; it is just a meta-package that depends on all the gnome-related packages. If you don't want all the gnome-related packages, then you can skil installing the "gnome" package and just choose the ones you want. Thomas -- Arthur H. Edwards Senior Research Physicist Air Force Research Laboratory AFRL/VSSE Bldg. 914 3550 Aberdeen Ave. SE KAFB, NM 87117-5776 (505) 853-6042 (O) (505) 463-6722 (C) (505) 846-2290 (F) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: major problem with gnome-games dependency]
"Arthur H. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I work at a government laboratory where computer games are prohibited. I > also use the gnome desktop. When I try to remove gnome-games apt wanst > to remove gnome because gnome depends on gnome-games. This is really a > show-stopper for government use of Linux. Also, I would think that the > dependency should work the other way: gnome-games should depend on gnome. It should be an easy matter not to play the games even when they are installed. Regardless, the "gnome" package is not necessary for the system; it is just a meta-package that depends on all the gnome-related packages. If you don't want all the gnome-related packages, then you can skil installing the "gnome" package and just choose the ones you want. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
