Tomasz Rybak <tomasz.ry...@post.pl> writes: > At first I thought it was a joke. But no, you really suggest that > everyone who wants to have up-to-date desktop environment > but without few packages (e.g. N-M or GDM) needs to create own package, > own local repository, and looks into it every time there is upgrade > to keep it current? And this is supposed to be simple?
Please read the rest of the mail, and the rest of the thread, where I explain that Recommends gets you into the same manual bookeeping situation anyway. Unless, of course, you treat Recommends specially for meta packages... and that is supposed to be simple how exactly? > Do you really think that forcing many people to maintain their > own repositories and metapackages is better than just moving > e.g. N-M or GDM3 from Depends to Recommends? Forcing? No. But it seems, I have to reiterate the solutions that are all superior to downgrading stuff to Recommends: 0) Cherry pick packages by hand =============================== Advantage is obviously that this is the most flexible way. Period. Disadvantage: no easy way to remove everything in one go, and it's a bit of a burden to follow the platform. However, lets consider the average user using stable: how often does the platform change? Zero times during a stable release. Zero. You might have to follow changes during a dist-upgrade, but that, I believe, is acceptable. If you're not using stable, well, tough luck, but you made that choice consciously, and should've been aware of the downsides, which may include a bit of extra work on your part. Still, even in that case, how often does or did the list of Dependencies of the gnome meta-package change since squeeze? I don't expect it'd changed much, save for the gnome2->gnome3 transition, and most of the changes most probably wouldn't need followups anyway. If I'm mistaken, please do correct me, however. 1) Use a custom meta package ============================ The advantage here is that it's easy to do, easy to automate, and you can easily follow the upstream meta-package, excluding only a few of its dependencies. The downside is obviously that you (or a script) has to maintain a local repo. Personally, I couldn't care less what the tool that automates this for me accomplishes that, as long as it can be fully automated (it can be), but some may disagree. And it's certainly not the most elegant solution. 2) Use dummy equivs packages ============================ Instead of replacing the meta, you'd replace the dependencies you don't want installed. The advantage is that you don't have to maintain a local repo, and you get to use the upstream meta as-is. The downside is that you'll have a bunch of local dummy packages, and you have to make them. Again, that can be scripted, and completely hidden from the user. Nevertheless, this is still not the most elegant solution. 3) Upload a gnome-minimal package or somesuch ============================================= The advantage is that it will have whatever you want. The downside is that the maintainer must keep it up to date, and whoever disagrees what constutites minimal, whill continue shouting. Yet, this is straighforward, and places the burden on one person instead of everyone who might want such a package. X) Downgrade stuff to recommends ================================ I do not consider this a solution, for reasons explained elsewhere, where my main concern is that it breaks the assumption that installing a platform (in this case, gnome) will install the whole thing, and it will be available for my use at any time. With recommends, there's a fair chance that a distinctly related package forces part of the platform off, and the package manager will happily remove them. Once the breakage is fixed, it will not reinstall them. This can be worked around by removing the auto-installed flag from those parts of the platform that I want to keep at all times, but then what is the use of Recommends, when I have to cherry pick anyway? I could just skip installing the meta, the net effect is the same (except, that without the meta, there are no expectations to break). > Think about all those hours wasted, times however many people who > want to customise their desktops. I still don't see the problem with installing a subset by hand. Advanced users can script it, novices will only need to hand pick once. Done. 10 minutes job. Compare that to the hours wasted trying to figure out what forced part of the platform off my system and when, during an unattended upgrade.. Yes, I do those, because I want to trust the system doing the right thing, and keeping stuff I installed intact and complete. If I have to double-guess the package manager, then there is something seriously wrong. Recommends would force me to do that. -- |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/87pq816qjm.fsf@algernon.balabit
