Hi,
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:18:28PM +0800, Aron Xu wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 22:41, Osamu Aoki <os...@debian.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 09:52:56PM +0800, Aron Xu wrote:
...
> You can remove anything that is "Recommend"ed by other packages and
> don't need to worry about broken dependencies.
This much, I agree.
> APT just _install_ recommended packages,
> but they are surely _not_ dependencies so it
> won't hurt when removing any "Recommend"ed package.
I think unneeded system complication may have some negatives...
Please read on.
> On the other side,
> the two IM Modules can be installed in any order,
> so we don't need to care about postinst scripts for them.
This I agree. This was one of the reason to explain BADness of circular
dependency.
> Yes, I know doing this is not the ideal solution, it's a bit tricky
> and it *works*.
Let's think *ideal* solution. Please carefully check what I proposed
for ibus dependency. Why bother creating unneeded complication to the
dependency chain if it can be avoided with no bad side-effects.
I proposed to put all "ibus-gtk3, ibus-gtk, ibus-qt4, ibus-clutter" of
these separated by comma instead of old "ibus-gtk | ibus-qt4 |
ibus-clutter". This can create system which *works* without having
messy mutual dependency situation.
> I believe a working input method is better than nothing, so I
> recommend ibus to do this as well.
My idea of unidirectional dependency chains for the working input method
are:
depend recommend
ibus-table -> ibus -> ibus-gtk3, ibus-gtk, ibus-qt4, ibus-clutter
ibus-pinyin -> ibus -> ibus-gtk3, ibus-gtk, ibus-qt4, ibus-clutter
ibus-mozc -> ibus -> ibus-gtk3, ibus-gtk, ibus-qt4, ibus-clutter
ibus-anthy ,,
ibus-chewing ,,
ibus-hangul ,,
ibus-chewing ,,
ibus-m17n ,,
So people install their IM choice package such as ibus-pinyin, then
complete system comes up. They do not install ibus-gtk first and expect
ibus-gtk3 and ibus-pinyin to be automatically installed even if it is
what they need. (If that happen, Japanese, Korean, and chewing users may
be unhappy) Anyway, language task should list ibus-pinyin like package
for each pertinent language.
I will not strongly oppose to list all reverse direction dependencies as
"suggest" if you really think this as an important thing to do. This
may give good guidance if people could not figure out what other
packages exist to utilize ibus etc. when they want to find out more
about alternative system setting. But people can find these reverse
direction dependencies from aptitude anyway. So making such has no real
gain, IMHO.
> When the following
> two things being resolved, we can come back to the *ideal* way.
Do not you think "recommend" by ibus pointing to ibus-gtk3 enough? It
just _INSTALL_ ibus-gtk3 by APT.
Osamu
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
