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
depend
I want to thank all of you for responding. I'm quoting here a response I
gave to an off-line communication because I thought it might be germane
to the discussion. I have expanded my response a little.
I have removed gnome, gnome-desktop-environment and gnome-games with no
apparent side effects
I suggest Debian add two metapackages: 'gnome-govt' for use by all
governments and 'gnome-USgovt' for US government in particular. ;-)
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 04:09:55PM -0600, Arthur H. Edwards wrote:
> I want to thank all of you for responding. I'm quoting here a response I
> gave to an off-lin
[Paul E Condon]
> I suggest Debian add two metapackages: 'gnome-govt' for use by all
> governments and 'gnome-USgovt' for US government in particular. ;-)
I suppose you were joking, but in all seriousness, why does _Debian_
need to add them? Let the site administrator do it, using 'equivs'.
If y
With regards to the suggestion that some means be provided for admins to
easily install a subset of GNOME that suits the needs of government
and/or US government ...
On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 01:50 -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> I suppose you were joking, but in all seriousness, why does _Debian_
> n
"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 governm
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
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-s
"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
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 d
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
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 n
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
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 wha
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 in
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 re
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
> fro
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
"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 ar
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
> ins
[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
> 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 Hemingw
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
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 PROT
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 n
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 usi
[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 wa
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, beca
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 aft
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 l
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
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."
>
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
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
> sh
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 g
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 ou
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'
> > pack
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.
T
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 inst
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
> u
40 matches
Mail list logo
