Don Armstrong writes ("Re: Reasons for recommends and suggests"):
> On Fri, 18 May 2007, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
> > The description should not explain what the other package is but
> > _what_ it does to the selected package.
>
> In order to explain what the
On Mon, 21 May 2007 13:38:58 +1000, Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> "Hendrik" == Hendrik Sattler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hendrik> Perhaps. But first, but not all packages are actually strict
Hendrik> about that and I do not want to bloat my installation and
Hendrik> second, if it i
> "Hendrik" == Hendrik Sattler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hendrik> Perhaps. But first, but not all packages are actually
Hendrik> strict about that and I do not want to bloat my
Hendrik> installation and second, if it is really that important
Hendrik> (read: essential part of
> "Don" == Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> But then you could just say: "Useful in case template databases
>> get corrupted". There is no need to go and explain details.
Don> If you're not going to explain what it actually does, why
Don> bother writing it at all?
On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 09:52:44AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> A field in the control file is unlikely to have enough space to
> truly state the reasons (remember, the maintainer has alsready stated
> that in their judgement the packages belong togethe
On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 09:43:20PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 20 May 2007 10:23:51 +0900, Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Suggests: foo, bar, baz
>
> > Justify-foo: To play while the program works for you. Justify-bar:
> > Here a longer discussions which
> > takes
On Sun, 20 May 2007 10:23:51 +0900, Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I am quite convinced that recommended packages do not need to be
> justified, but I think that the need for such a justification in the
> case of suggested packages will go growing. Soon or later, the apt
> frontends
Le Sat, May 19, 2007 at 09:52:44AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>
> A field in the control file is unlikely to have enough space to
> truly state the reasons (remember, the maintainer has alsready stated
> that in their judgement the packages belong together for all but the
> most
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sat, 19 May 2007 13:17:45 +0200, Hendrik Sattler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Am Samstag 19 Mai 2007 07:14 schrieb Manoj Srivastava:
If you do not wish to educate yourself on the details, perhaps you
should be heeding the directions given to you by the maintainer?
Pe
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Without going into arcane details, you have been told that, in
> the maintainers opinion, you should be installing debconf-utils when
> you install ucf, unless yours is an unusual installation, and you know
> what you are doing.
True. However, lets not forget that this i
On Saturday 19 May 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Well, for non-buggy packages, what you have is an issue of
> trusting the maintainers judgement. In that case, you also have to
> trust that the maintainer comes up with a correct, and properly
> formulated explanation in under one line
On Fri, 18 May 2007 21:44:43 -0700, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> It's not like it would be difficult to decide on a standard to allow
>> the segment of text in README.Debian that described the optional
>> dependencies (or other information
On Sat, 19 May 2007 13:17:45 +0200, Hendrik Sattler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Am Samstag 19 Mai 2007 07:14 schrieb Manoj Srivastava:
>> If you do not wish to educate yourself on the details, perhaps you
>> should be heeding the directions given to you by the maintainer?
> Perhaps. But first, b
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 01:01:18AM +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 02:08:16AM -0400, Kevin Mark wrote:
> > Now as for the need for re-classification of 'recommends' to say
> > 'suggests' to trim (mega|giga)bytes from the basic install sounds like a
> > neat
> > idea and a w
On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 02:08:16AM -0400, Kevin Mark wrote:
> Now as for the need for re-classification of 'recommends' to say
> 'suggests' to trim (mega|giga)bytes from the basic install sounds like a neat
> idea and a way to help with that is to have the maintainer have a simple
> file that expla
Am Samstag 19 Mai 2007 07:14 schrieb Manoj Srivastava:
> If you do not wish to educate yourself on the details, perhaps
> you should be heeding the directions given to you by the maintainer?
Perhaps. But first, but not all packages are actually strict about that and I
do not want to blo
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 02:04:15PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Kevin Mark wrote:
>
> A desktop user is perhaps not the best example, since recommends might
> as well be depends to such a user -- they're both things that aptitude
> installs when the software is selected. Such a user is also better
>
On Sat, 2007-05-19 at 00:16 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, 18 May 2007 19:43:31 -0400, Felipe Sateler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Don Armstrong wrote:
> >> For example, in the case you're talking about, you'd have to explain
> >> that ucf would like to be able to use debconf-loadtempla
On Fri, 18 May 2007 19:43:31 -0400, Felipe Sateler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Don Armstrong wrote:
>> For example, in the case you're talking about, you'd have to explain
>> that ucf would like to be able to use debconf-loadtemplate from
>> debconf-utils utils when it's running as root just in c
On Fri, 18 May 2007 08:39:00 +0200, Hendrik Sattler
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The description should not explain what the other package is but
> _what_ it does to the selected package. Example: ucf recommends
> debconf-utils. The description of debconf-utils tells me nothing about
> what it a
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's not like it would be difficult to decide on a standard to allow the
> segment of text in README.Debian that described the optional
> dependencies (or other information that a packagea maintainer thought
> people may be interested in knowing as they'
On Fri, 18 May 2007, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> I would very much be in favor of adding new, optional fields that
> describe the dependencies of the package. These can be integrated
> into the package management interface at appropriate points, without
> cluttering the description itself.
While I thi
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 04:56:23PM -0700, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
> On Fri, 18 May 2007, Brian May wrote:
> > > "Neil" == Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > Neil> The only bug suitable for this scenario is a wishlist bug
> > Neil> for a more
The only time you wouldn't want a Recommends: installed is
if you know that it wouldn't be useful.
Not really.
Policy is vague and only specifies that Recommends means that more than
a proportion between 1/2 and 1 of systems consider that the recommended
package's contribution to the recommend
On Fri, 18 May 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> does putting the info in the README entail the loss of the kind of
> structuring that would make it easy to, for example,
> programmatically display just the relevant text for a specific
> recommends?
Not necessarily if people agreed on a specific wa
On Fri, 18 May 2007, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> Don Armstrong wrote:
> > For example, in the case you're talking about, you'd have to explain
> > that ucf would like to be able to use debconf-loadtemplate from
> > debconf-utils utils when it's running as root just in case its
> > templates have becom
Don Armstrong wrote:
> For example, in the case you're talking about, you'd have to explain
> that ucf would like to be able to use debconf-loadtemplate from
> debconf-utils utils when it's running as root just in case its
> templates have become corrupted. Now, you and I may know what
> debconf-l
Kevin Mark wrote:
> I agree. There are different users, not all are 'programmers', some are
> gui-desktop-users ( and as such should not be ignored and expect only
> 'programmers' to be using your programs) and all they want to know is
> <>. If you are using
> synaptic or aptitude and just about t
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 02:37:06AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 18 May 2007, Kevin Mark wrote:
> > As I mentioned, I dont think this information should be in every
> > package and probably would be useful for more desktop-users than
> > developers. I'd only suggest creating the infrastruct
On Fri, 18 May 2007, Kevin Mark wrote:
> As I mentioned, I dont think this information should be in every
> package and probably would be useful for more desktop-users than
> developers. I'd only suggest creating the infrastructure (presumably so
> that it doesn't break anything in dpkg and would o
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 02:04:24AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 18 May 2007, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
> > The description should not explain what the other package is but
> > _what_ it does to the selected package.
>
> In order to explain what the recommended package does to the
> recommedi
On Fri, 18 May 2007, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
> The description should not explain what the other package is but
> _what_ it does to the selected package.
In order to explain what the recommended package does to the
recommeding package, you have to explain what the other package is to
some extent.
Am Freitag 18 Mai 2007 01:56 schrieb Don Armstrong:
> The recommends should be a set such that you'd want to install them,
> unless you know specifically why you don't. [In the majority of cases
> that I've personally run into, this means "unusual" setups like a
> separate database server, stripped
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 06:22:11PM +0100, Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
> On Thu, 17 May 2007 11:29:16 +0200
> Hendrik Sattler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My problem with the current situation that you either do the policy of
> > always
> > installing such stuff or you do
On Fri, 18 May 2007, Brian May wrote:
> > "Neil" == Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Neil> The only bug suitable for this scenario is a wishlist bug
> Neil> for a more verbose manpage.
>
> I want to know if I should install the package recommendations or not
> when I inst
Neil Williams wrote:
> You install a Recommends or Suggests when you want to use some part of
> the package that uses it. The obvious place to document such
> requirements is the manpage for the optional script. In most cases,
> users simply don't need to use those options.
Recommends/Suggests ar
> "Neil" == Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Neil> The only bug suitable for this scenario is a wishlist bug
Neil> for a more verbose manpage.
I want to know if I should install the package recommendations or not
when I install the package.
Unfortunately you cannot see the m
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 07:53:07PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2007 11:58, Kevin Mark wrote:
> > Package: mutt
> > Suggests: ispell [adds spell cheking while composing emails]
> > Suggests: urlview [extracts urls from email and can lanuch a web browser]
> > Suggests: mixmaster [
On Thu, 17 May 2007 20:48:57 +0200
"Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 07:43:09PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> > Most users don't need to use the packages given as Recommends or
> > Suggests so the purpose, as I see it, is to help those who have unusual
> >
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 07:43:09PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> Most users don't need to use the packages given as Recommends or
> Suggests so the purpose, as I see it, is to help those who have unusual
> or extended needs for the functions provided by the package.
You are at odds with Policy wit
On Thu, 17 May 2007 19:53:07 +0200 (CEST)
"Thijs Kinkhorst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2007 11:58, Kevin Mark wrote:
> > Package: mutt
> > Suggests: ispell [adds spell cheking while composing emails]
> > Suggests: urlview [extracts urls from email and can lanuch a web browser]
>
On Thu, May 17, 2007 11:58, Kevin Mark wrote:
> Package: mutt
> Suggests: ispell [adds spell cheking while composing emails]
> Suggests: urlview [extracts urls from email and can lanuch a web browser]
> Suggests: mixmaster [allows you to compose anonymized email]
This seems like a useful idea to m
On Thu, 17 May 2007 11:29:16 +0200
Hendrik Sattler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> what I am really missing in the current dependency scheme is WHY some packages
> define Recommends and Suggests on specific other packages.
I use Recommends or Suggests when the package includes a variety of
s
On Thu, May 17, 2007, Kevin Mark wrote:
> What I thought about a while ago was this:
> ---
> Package: mutt
> Suggests: ispell [adds spell cheking while composing emails]
> Suggests: urlview [extracts urls from email and can lanuch a web browser]
> Suggests: mixmaster [allows you to comp
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 11:29:16AM +0200, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> what I am really missing in the current dependency scheme is WHY some
> packages
> define Recommends and Suggests on specific other packages.
>
> My problem with the current situation that you either do the policy of alw
On Thursday 17 May 2007 11:29, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
> If I file bugs about them, which severity can this be given?
I'd say wishlist.
pgpQSnFwAHNE1.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Hi,
what I am really missing in the current dependency scheme is WHY some packages
define Recommends and Suggests on specific other packages.
My problem with the current situation that you either do the policy of always
installing such stuff or you don't. There is no way to decide case by case
47 matches
Mail list logo
