On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 12:03:26PM +0200, Michael Prokop wrote: > And the package does *not* depend on all available fence agents, > they are only recommends. > > I'm aware that folks disabling Recommends are supposed to know what > they are doing. But at least in my experience avoiding Recommends is > a common practice esp. amongst server systems where fence-agents has > its use case. And if someone is upgrading fence-agents from bookworm > (v4.12.1-1) to trixie (v4.15.0-3) and isn't aware of this > fence-agents Recommends situation *upfront*, the system will end up > with this empty / broken fence-agents situation.
Right, the split was done exactly to benefit server systems so they don't have to install 1GB of dependencies for agents they don't use. > IMO the fence-agents should: > > a) at least depend on fence-agents-common, and: Not sure how this helps with the transition? This is a common library and most agents depend on it directly. > b) a "fence-agents-all" package which *actually* depends on *all* > agent packages could further mitigate this situation (the > fence-agents package itself then could use fence-agents-all in its > Recommends). Would it be better for fence-agents-all to replace fence-agent than? -- Valentin
