On 17-07-13 08:56, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Crap, that was intended only for the epiphany-browser discussion.
Right. So we agree that there is no such problem for liferea. > My point that it would only ever make sense for a near-zero amount of > users to uninstall gnome-icon-theme still stands. Let me make myself clear. I am not discussing this just because of disk space. I am talking about this because of choice, in general, not specifically this case. I hate it when packages depend or recommend on things they don't need to depend on or recommend and making it more difficult for me to install it (if for whatever reason I can not accept those on my system, e.g. due to conflicts). There was a very heated debate in Debian [see links in 1] some months ago about gnome depending on network-manager. The maintainer said, it depends, a lot of people said, it doesn't and it sits in my way. The outcome of a technical committee ruling was that is had to be removed from depends. For liferea, if we put this in depends, it NEEDS to be installed. Recommends is installed by default, so that is nearly the same but at least gives people a choice, so that is where things need to go that are not strictly necessary. Suggests is for improvements. It really looks like the place for this theme we are discussing here. Paul [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=681834#5 [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=681834#273
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
