Steve McIntyre <st...@einval.com> writes: > Gergely wrote: >>Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <h...@debian.org> writes: >> >>> IMO, metapackages should "depend" on the absolutely required stuff (and many >>> times that will be the empty set), "recommend" the rest, and maybe even >>> "suggest" fringe packages. This achieves maximum usability for more >>> usecases, and malfunctions only in the unsupported case of "no install >>> recommends by default" -- you should skip recommends always in a >>> case-by-case basis. >> >>That also achives maximum annoyance, because if I want the full >>platform, I'll have to go recommends/suggest hunting. (No, I'm *not* >>going to turn on install-recommends.) > > Right. So you're arguing that all the packages should be listed as > Depends: to make *your* life easier, when you're doing something > different from what's recommended. Thanks for showing how much weight > we should attach to your argument.
It's a meta-package, that pulls in a platform. If I install it, I want the full platform, always. That's about it. If I install mono-complete, I want the whole bloody thing, always. If I install kde-full, I want the full KDE desktop, with all bells and whistles. If I install gnome, I want the whole thing with all strings attached. That's what I consider a meta-package's job. If I want parts of it, I will install parts of it. Metas are a convenience for the most common case: installing all of it. Lets consider another case! Suppose I have Install-Recommends turned on, and install a theoretical meta package, that has half of its stuff in recommends, because they're not strictly necessary, but merely enhance the system. Lets suppose one of these enhancements include a tool I use every once in a while, but not daily. Now, a few months later, a transition comes about, and this package I have gets removed, because another thing I update breaks/conflicts/whatevers it. Since it's a recommends only, my package manager will most likely want to remove it. I now have two options: I either notice this, and stop the upgrade, or I don't and poof, part of the platform's gone. I installed the full thing, and lost part of it. I'm not happy. As for why I wouldn't notice? Because I trust the system to do the right thing, and I do automatic, unattended upgrades. Not an uncommon thing to do, I believe. But with recommends, the system failed me here, and removed part of the platform that I *explicitly* installed. And I had Install-Recommends turned on. Thank you, I'd rather have Depends, and a reliable way to keep the full platform on my system. Would I want to remove parts of it, I already have the power to do that with the status quo. I can even keep up with the meta package easily, if I choose to do so. I don't know about you, but I prefer my systems reliable and I absolutely hate when it wants to screw me over and try to remove parts of stuff I explicitly asked it to install. -- |8] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87629tuz4v.fsf@algernon.balabit
