Jean-Christophe Dubacq writes:
> On 11/07/2012 11:12, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>> On Mi, 11 iul 12, 10:55:16, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>>
>>> The feature of _allowing a subset of packages to be removed that was
>>> _ensured_ to be installed: Impossible without defeating the feature of
>>> _ensuring
]] Russ Allbery
> I would usually just install gnome-core once on a new system, unmarkauto
> the leaf packages, and then purge gnome-core and network-manager.
> Unfortunately, the drawback of that is that if gnome-core later adds new
> packages, I don't pick them up by default.
Due to those draw
Thanks to the advice of a good man, I'll try to resume my point of view to
avoid repeating once and again.
First, I find ground on our Policy:
> Recommends
>
> This declares a strong, but not absolute, dependency.
>
> The Recommends field should list packages that would be found togeth
[sorry for the lengthy quoting below]
On 12/07/12 10:10, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> Noel David Torres Taño writes:
>> Not so minimal if you want your gnome set to be up to date, including new
>> applications being installed.
>
> It is very minimal. 5 minutes of work. Been there, done that, posted the
Adam Borowski writes ("Re: Recommends for metapackages"):
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 09:32:19PM -0600, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 07:21:00PM +0100, Noel David Torres Taño wrote:
> > > Installing N-M breaks unrelated software.
> >
> >
Noel David Torres Taño writes:
> I *hate* doing things manually, that's why I'm using a bloody high-level
> metapackage. If it forces me to deinstall N-M by hand using
> --force-depends (because it breaks my Pidgin) every time I use aptitude
> to install something, either related or unrelated to
On Viernes, 13 de julio de 2012 09:38:45 Gergely Nagy wrote:
> Miles Bader writes:
> > Gergely Nagy writes:
> >> if upstream considers a package a core part of a platform,
> >> recommends *is* wrong.
> >
> > Er, no.
> >
> > Upstreams are not infallible, and are often quite fallible...
> >
> >
On Viernes, 13 de julio de 2012 08:38:47 Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote:
> Miles Bader writes:
> > issues with NM: it doesn't seem to be tested with much in the way of
> > non-standard setups
>
> My personal feeling is that this happens because people who use
> non-standard setups usually start by p
On Viernes, 13 de julio de 2012 08:09:58 Gergely Nagy wrote:
> Gergely Nagy writes:
> >> Please don't forget that a Recommends will pull in packages in all but
> >> unusual installations :)
> >
> > But also keep in mind, that once a package is installed, adding new
> > recommends will not pull th
On Viernes, 13 de julio de 2012 08:05:10 Gergely Nagy wrote:
[...]
> On one hand, you have, in the depends case:
>
> # apt-get remove gstreamer-plugins-good
>
> Which will try to remove the whole world, including the meta, and that
> will ring alarm bells.
>
> Or in the recommends case:
>
> # a
On Viernes, 13 de julio de 2012 07:33:09 Gergely Nagy wrote:
[...]
> I *hate* doing things manually, that's why I'm using a bloody high-level
> package manager. If it forces me to double-guess it, check a lot of
> things during upgrades, I might aswell go back to downloading packages
> by hand and
[...]
> >> The amount of extra work necessary is minimal though.
> >
> > Not so minimal if you want your gnome set to be up to date, including new
> > applications being installed.
>
> It is very minimal. 5 minutes of work. Been there, done that, posted the
> bulk of the solution, and a general o
Miles Bader writes:
> Gergely Nagy writes:
>> if upstream considers a package a core part of a platform,
>> recommends *is* wrong.
>
> Er, no.
>
> Upstreams are not infallible, and are often quite fallible...
>
> Upstream's "view" is a good _default_, but such judgements should be
> made based o
Le vendredi 13 juillet 2012 à 07:27 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen a écrit :
> ]] Gergely Nagy
>
> > Instead of fighting for Recommends, which would break your system in
> > various interesting ways later on[1], there's a third solution: noone
> > stops anyone from uploading a gnome-minimal package, whi
Gergely Nagy writes:
> if upstream considers a package a core part of a platform,
> recommends *is* wrong.
Er, no.
Upstreams are not infallible, and are often quite fallible...
Upstream's "view" is a good _default_, but such judgements should be
made based on the reality on the ground.
-miles
Miles Bader writes:
> issues with NM: it doesn't seem to be tested with much in the way of
> non-standard setups
My personal feeling is that this happens because people who use
non-standard setups usually start by purging NM instead of trying to
spend weeks reading the source code to contribute
Jeremy Bicha writes:
> I don't claim to be a networking expert, but I believe half the
> conversation here is based on wrong or outdated information.
My (personal) complaint about NM is that it doesn't correct correctly
work with NFS mounts, I believe because it doesn't run at the right
time duri
Gergely Nagy writes:
>> Please don't forget that a Recommends will pull in packages in all but
>> unusual installations :)
>
> But also keep in mind, that once a package is installed, adding new
> recommends will not pull those new things in on an upgrade.
I've been corrected, that this stateme
Andrei POPESCU writes:
> On Jo, 12 iul 12, 17:44:52, Gergely Nagy wrote:
>>
>> > Then some time later during upgrade it'll upgrade all packages
>> > but will not install N-M; at the same time it'll install
>> > new package that was added to Recommends in that new version.
>>
>> As far as I reme
Andrei POPESCU writes:
> On Jo, 12 iul 12, 12:10:29, Gergely Nagy wrote:
>>
>> Erm, how have I broken my system? I did not. (Turning Install-Recommends
>> off is definitely not breaking my system, FYI.)
>
> It means you are running with a non-default configuration and you should
> be aware of t
Andrei POPESCU writes:
> On Jo, 12 iul 12, 15:46:05, Gergely Nagy wrote:
>>
>> 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
Tollef Fog Heen writes:
> ]] Gergely Nagy
>
>> Instead of fighting for Recommends, which would break your system in
>> various interesting ways later on[1], there's a third solution: noone
>> stops anyone from uploading a gnome-minimal package, which depends on
>> gnome-session and a few selecte
Wouter Verhelst writes:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 04:18:17PM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
>> "Eugene V. Lyubimkin" writes:
>>
>> > On 2012-07-10 15:32, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> >> Le mardi 10 juillet 2012 à 17:38 +0900, Miles Bader a écrit :
>> >> > What's wrong with Recommends: in that case?
]] Gergely Nagy
> Instead of fighting for Recommends, which would break your system in
> various interesting ways later on[1], there's a third solution: noone
> stops anyone from uploading a gnome-minimal package, which depends on
> gnome-session and a few selected other parts, without n-m.
I wo
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 04:18:17PM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> "Eugene V. Lyubimkin" writes:
>
> > On 2012-07-10 15:32, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >> Le mardi 10 juillet 2012 à 17:38 +0900, Miles Bader a écrit :
> >> > What's wrong with Recommends: in that case? It seems to perfectly
> >> > mat
On Jo, 12 iul 12, 12:10:29, Gergely Nagy wrote:
>
> Erm, how have I broken my system? I did not. (Turning Install-Recommends
> off is definitely not breaking my system, FYI.)
It means you are running with a non-default configuration and you should
be aware of the side-effects.
The attitude that
On Jo, 12 iul 12, 17:44:52, Gergely Nagy wrote:
>
> > Then some time later during upgrade it'll upgrade all packages
> > but will not install N-M; at the same time it'll install
> > new package that was added to Recommends in that new version.
>
> As far as I remember, it will not install new rec
On Jo, 12 iul 12, 15:46:05, Gergely Nagy wrote:
>
> 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, gnom
On Thu, 2012-07-12 at 05:42 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 09:32:19PM -0600, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 07:21:00PM +0100, Noel David Torres Taño wrote:
> > > Installing N-M breaks unrelated software.
> >
> > No. At most it breaks *related* software.
>
>
FTR: Please don't CC me on list mail. I'm tired of setting M-F-T.
Tomasz Rybak writes:
> Dnia 2012-07-12, czw o godzinie 15:46 +0200, Gergely Nagy pisze:
>> Tomasz Rybak writes:
>>
>> > At first I thought it was a joke. But no, you really suggest that
>> > everyone who wants to have up-to-date
Dnia 2012-07-12, czw o godzinie 15:46 +0200, Gergely Nagy pisze:
> Tomasz Rybak 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,
Tomasz Rybak 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
Dnia 2012-07-12, czw o godzinie 10:39 +0200, Gergely Nagy pisze:
> Noel David Torres Taño writes:
>
> >> Yet, we try to not diverge much from upstream, and maintain a good
> >> relationship with them. If they consider it core, so can we. Those who
> >> want to hand-pick parts of a meta package, c
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 11:25:05PM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> for the 1-2% of people who has weird needs.
It's this proportion which I think is not consistent, nor agreed, amongst all
developers.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe
Thibaut Paumard writes:
> Le 12/07/12 11:06, Gergely Nagy a écrit :
>> 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
Andreas Tille writes:
>> 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.
>
> I think the attempt to ensure something always is not reasonable because
> if th
Hi,
Le 12/07/12 11:06, Gergely Nagy a écrit :
> 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 o
On 12-07-12 at 11:26am, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-07-12 at 11:09 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
> > On 12-07-12 at 10:28am, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
> > > I'm maintaining a package which upstream delivers as all in one
> > > (600MB) and refuses to support splitting. I've split it in
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:06:40AM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> > 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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Le 12/07/12 11:09, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
> As with any package available in Debian: Just don't install it if
> you do not like what the package does!
Hi,
There is a major difference between the gnome-core metapackages and
any other (meta) packag
Abou Al Montacir writes:
>> As with any package available in Debian: Just don't install it if you do
>> not like what the package does!
>>
>> It really is that simple!
>
> I think that we really do not have the same understanding of
> metapackage. You clearly want them strict and non flexible,
Andrei POPESCU writes:
> On Mi, 11 iul 12, 14:41:50, Gergely Nagy wrote:
>> Andrei POPESCU writes:
>> >
>> > Depending on how you do the package selection on your next installation
>> > you might end up with rsyslog, but without logrotate[1].
>>
>> I don't see how that would break anything. lo
On Thu, 2012-07-12 at 11:09 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On 12-07-12 at 10:28am, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
> > I'm maintaining a package which upstream delivers as all in one
> > (600MB) and refuses to support splitting. I've split it into 22
> > packages because I know and got requests from u
Steve McIntyre writes:
> Gergely wrote:
>>Henrique de Moraes Holschuh 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 usab
"Eugene V. Lyubimkin" writes:
> On 2012-07-11 14:33, Gergely Nagy wrote:
>> "Eugene V. Lyubimkin" writes:
>>
>> > Moreover, despite me understanding the picture, I still
>> > has no clean, safe and documented way to do what I'd want in case the
>> > package maintainer chosed Depends.
>>
>> You
On 12-07-12 at 10:28am, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
> I'm maintaining a package which upstream delivers as all in one
> (600MB) and refuses to support splitting. I've split it into 22
> packages because I know and got requests from users who want to have
> it in machines with small disks and/or low
Noel David Torres Taño writes:
>> Yet, we try to not diverge much from upstream, and maintain a good
>> relationship with them. If they consider it core, so can we. Those who
>> want to hand-pick parts of a meta package, can do so, we do not forbid.
>
> If we want to be user friendly, it is not a
On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 23:57 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Noel David Torres Taño (11/07/2012):
> > > Your view is irrelevant here: GNOME project considers it essential.
> >
> > Gnome view is the one irrelevant. This is Debian GNU/Linux, not Gnome
> > GNU/Linux. We need to care for our users (bo
On 2012-07-12 09:23, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> By the same view, totem improves GNOME, but it is not needed at all.
Correct. But it does not conflict with kaffeine, mplayer, vlc, xine, ...
> Gcalctool improves GNOME, but it is not needed at all.
Correct. But it does not conflict with bc, kcalc,
Le mercredi 11 juillet 2012 à 19:17 +0100, Noel David Torres Taño a
écrit :
> So a meta-package is "just" a way of installing things together, and a
> lot more. But from those things, only dependencies should be Depends,
> and software that improves the collection should be Recommends. In
> this pa
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 09:32:19PM -0600, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 07:21:00PM +0100, Noel David Torres Taño wrote:
> > Installing N-M breaks unrelated software.
>
> No. At most it breaks *related* software.
Exactly, that's why it's the "gnome-core" package that's RC-buggy, no
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 07:21:00PM +0100, Noel David Torres Taño wrote:
> Installing N-M breaks unrelated software.
No. At most it breaks *related* software.
Kind regards
Philipp Kern
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 08:04:18PM -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> On 11 July 2012 14:21, Noel David Torres Taño wrote:
> > Installing N-M breaks unrelated software.
>
> I don't claim to be a networking expert, but I believe half the
> conversation here is based on wrong or outdated information. I
>
On 11 July 2012 14:21, Noel David Torres Taño wrote:
> Installing N-M breaks unrelated software.
Hi!
I don't claim to be a networking expert, but I believe half the
conversation here is based on wrong or outdated information. I
encourage those who think NetworkManager (NM) doesn't play well with
On 2012-07-11, Bruce Sass wrote:
> On July 10, 2012 10:39:10 AM Sune Vuorela wrote:
>> On 2012-07-10, Gergely Nagy wrote:
>> > No. Only if installing recommends is turned on, which cannot be
>> > guaranteed.
>>
>> There is many ways to break your system. turning off installation of
>> recommends
On July 10, 2012 10:39:10 AM Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2012-07-10, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> > No. Only if installing recommends is turned on, which cannot be
> > guaranteed.
>
> There is many ways to break your system. turning off installation of
> recommends is one of them.
So, if Recommends should
Noel David Torres Taño (11/07/2012):
> > Your view is irrelevant here: GNOME project considers it essential.
>
> Gnome view is the one irrelevant. This is Debian GNU/Linux, not Gnome
> GNU/Linux. We need to care for our users (both proficient and novice [1]),
> not for Gnome developers desires. A
[...]
> > > "essential parts of what the upstream GNOME project has to offer" - as
> > > its package description also clearly reflects.
> >
> > And NM is not essential in my point of view
>
> Your view is irrelevant here: GNOME project considers it essential.
Gnome view is the one irrelevant. Th
> > Installing N-M breaks unrelated software.
>
> That is a bug in network-manager, not in gnome-core.
>
> That bug is not fixed nor worked around by making it easier to avoid the
> broken package.
>
No. It is not a broken package. It does what it is designed to do. The bug is
having it as a De
On Mi, 11 iul 12, 14:41:50, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> Andrei POPESCU writes:
> >
> > Depending on how you do the package selection on your next installation
> > you might end up with rsyslog, but without logrotate[1].
>
> I don't see how that would break anything. logrotate is not necessary
> for lo
On Mi, 11 iul 12, 15:22:32, Gergely Nagy wrote:
>
> Like I said earlier: script it. I posted a script that can remove any
> number of packages from another's depends line, and echo a control
> file. Updating that to create a local meta-package is a piece of
> cake. Hooking it into apt is also simi
Gergely wrote:
>Henrique de Moraes Holschuh 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
On 12-07-11 at 07:21pm, Noel David Torres Taño wrote:
> > I still (as previously mentioned) believe that you really should
> > focus on gnome-session instead, if you feel gnome-core is too
> > invasive when it insist on installing certain image viewer, web
> > browser, video player and "other to
On 12-07-11 at 07:54pm, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 20:01 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > "essential parts of what the upstream GNOME project has to offer" - as
> > its package description also clearly reflects.
> And NM is not essential in my point of view
Your view is irr
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh 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 usabilit
> Yet, we try to not diverge much from upstream, and maintain a good
> relationship with them. If they consider it core, so can we. Those who
> want to hand-pick parts of a meta package, can do so, we do not forbid.
If we want to be user friendly, it is not a matter of "we do not forbid", it
is a
> I still (as previously mentioned) believe that you really should focus
> on gnome-session instead, if you feel gnome-core is too invasive when it
> insist on installing certain image viewer, web browser, video player and
> "other tools" (which includes a certain network manager).
>
Installing an
> Some argue that meta-packages can have a different purpose, and some
> argue that recommending also to some (lesser) extend ensures
> installation of packages. None of that, however, changes the fact that
> _this_ meta-package _now_ has the feature of strictly ensuring a certain
> set of package
On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 20:01 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On 12-07-10 at 06:34pm, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 18:10 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > The very purpose of a meta-package is to _ensure_ that a certain set
> > > of packages is installed, not just recommend
By the way, I find it enlightening to realize that "gnome" only
recommends network-manager-gnome whereas gnome-core depends on it.
That was at gnome 2.30 times...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@li
On 2012-07-11 14:33, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> "Eugene V. Lyubimkin" writes:
>
> > Moreover, despite me understanding the picture, I still
> > has no clean, safe and documented way to do what I'd want in case the
> > package maintainer chosed Depends.
>
> You have: install the pieces you want by han
Thibaut Paumard writes:
>> 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.)
>
> You don't want to turn on install-recommends, but you are happy with
> installing a load
Noel David Torres Taño writes:
>> Well, in case of GNOME, upstream considers n-m to be part of the core
>> system, to the best of my knowledge. If upstream does so, so should we.
>
> No. That's why we have our own distribution instead of just a collection of
> unpatched packages compiled from so
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
Le 11/07/12 14:36, Gergely Nagy a écrit :
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh 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 "su
Andrei POPESCU writes:
> On Ma, 10 iul 12, 18:43:03, Gergely Nagy wrote:
>>
>> During the past ~14 years I've been using Debian with that setting
>> turned off, nothing ever broke on my systems because of this setting. If
>> it does, then I'll consider that a bug and report it appropriately.
>
>
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh 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
"Eugene V. Lyubimkin" writes:
> Moreover, despite me understanding the picture, I still
> has no clean, safe and documented way to do what I'd want in case the
> package maintainer chosed Depends.
You have: install the pieces you want by hand. That's at least clean and
safe. I do not think it is
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 08:51:32AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Broken as in "partially working because there are expected features missing"
> is the _very_ definition of "not installing a recommended package".
>
> Now, "broken" as in "doesn't work at all for any use case" would be
On 2012-07-10 23:46, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> - The gnome-core metapackage is very useful to some people. It helps
>people install a standard GNOME installation, keep it installed,
>and remove it later if they wish, using a single package.
Most metapackages provide such a "useful collect
On 11/07/2012 11:12, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Mi, 11 iul 12, 10:55:16, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>
>> The feature of _allowing a subset of packages to be removed that was
>> _ensured_ to be installed: Impossible without defeating the feature of
>> _ensuring_ those same package are installed.
>
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012, Jon Dowland wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 04:39:10PM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> > On 2012-07-10, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> > > No. Only if installing recommends is turned on, which cannot be
> > > guaranteed.
> >
> > There is many ways to break your system. turning off insta
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Ma, 10 iul 12, 22:07:10, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
> > ... And I disagree with that. No solution can override policy's "all
> > Depends must be satisfied". If one choose to support the "exclude from
> > metapackage" one either has to change the polic
On Mi, 11 iul 12, 10:17:44, Sune Vuorela wrote:
>
> I'd rather put kde-plasma-desktop/kde-plasma-netbook on the
> gnome-session level. and probably kde-full at the gnome level.
> kde-standard is not a collection by upstream, but a collection by the
> debian people, so it doesn't fully fit the gnom
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 04:39:10PM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2012-07-10, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> > No. Only if installing recommends is turned on, which cannot be
> > guaranteed.
>
> There is many ways to break your system. turning off installation of
> recommends is one of them.
If turning
On 2012-07-11, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>
> --YZa61AII3s1sGKYx
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> On Mi, 11 iul 12, 11:14:52, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>>=20
>> Yes, maybe we should advertise it more, but gnome-se
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>??? kde-full
>gnome kde-standard
>gnome-core kde-plasma-desktop/kde-plasma-netbook
>gnome-session ???
Maybe some sort of renaming would also be nice to make the
‘hierarchy’ more obvious? Along the lines of
??? kde-full *
On 12-07-11 at 12:12pm, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Mi, 11 iul 12, 10:55:16, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> >
> > The feature of _allowing a subset of packages to be removed that was
> > _ensured_ to be installed: Impossible without defeating the feature
> > of _ensuring_ those same package are instal
Le 11/07/12 11:14, Josselin Mouette a écrit :
> Le mardi 10 juillet 2012 à 20:01 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
>> I disagree: Looking at the many other dependencies of gnome-core, it
>> clearly isn't meant as "smallest possible GNOME setup" but more
>> "essential parts of what the upstream G
On Mi, 11 iul 12, 11:14:52, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
> Yes, maybe we should advertise it more, but gnome-session should be
> self-contained, and enough for a bare GNOME desktop without any
> applications.
Yes please :)
Some kind of harmonization of (meta-)package names with KDE would also
be v
Le mardi 10 juillet 2012 à 20:01 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
> I disagree: Looking at the many other dependencies of gnome-core, it
> clearly isn't meant as "smallest possible GNOME setup" but more
> "essential parts of what the upstream GNOME project has to offer" - as
> its package desc
On Mi, 11 iul 12, 10:55:16, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
> The feature of _allowing a subset of packages to be removed that was
> _ensured_ to be installed: Impossible without defeating the feature of
> _ensuring_ those same package are installed.
Agreed. However, unless I missed something I haven
On 12-07-11 at 10:45am, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Mi, 11 iul 12, 09:10:12, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > A meta-package has no functionalirty beyond pulling in packages, so
> > there is no loss to the resulting system other than lack of its sole
> > feature.
>
> IMVHO a feature almost as importan
On Mi, 11 iul 12, 09:10:12, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> A meta-package has no functionalirty beyond pulling in packages, so
> there is no loss to the resulting system other than lack of its sole
> feature.
IMVHO a feature almost as important is to remove a set of packages.
Kind regards,
Andrei
-
On 12-07-11 at 10:04am, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
> > Jonas Smedegaard writes:
>
> […]
>
> > It is a feature (which each user is free to avoid by not using it!)
> > for Debian to include a meta-package that pulls in that vil
> > n-m, not a bug.
>
> … And what exactly this “feature”
On Mi, 11 iul 12, 00:08:18, David Kalnischkies wrote:
>
> Then please tell me what this code does:
> http://anonscm.debian.org/loggerhead/apt/debian-sid/annotate/head:/apt-pkg/depcache.cc#L1103
>
> (and yes, minus refactoring and bugfixing, this code is older than the
> switch to enable installa
> Jonas Smedegaard writes:
[…]
> It is a feature (which each user is free to avoid by not using it!)
> for Debian to include a meta-package that pulls in that vil n-m,
> not a bug.
… And what exactly this “feature” gives to the user?
[…]
--
FSF associate member #7257
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Andrei POPESCU
wrote:
> On Ma, 10 iul 12, 22:38:59, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
>> On 2012-07-10 22:21, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>>
>> > but maybe package managers should gain a
>> > "Install-New-Recommends" option defaulting to true?
> ^
>
>> Recommen
Hi,
Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> No, I do not find it right for Debian to mandate meta-packages to only
> recommend when some users need only a subset of the offerings of said
> meta-package: There will _always_ be some users needing only a subset of
> things, rendering all dependencies "wrong" b
On Ma, 10 iul 12, 22:38:59, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
> On 2012-07-10 22:21, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>
> > but maybe package managers should gain a
> > "Install-New-Recommends" option defaulting to true?
^
> Recommends are installed by default for quite a time already.
Sure, but
On 12-07-10 at 10:07pm, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
> On 2012-07-10 20:15, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > On 12-07-10 at 07:35pm, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
> > > On 2012-07-10 18:10, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > > The very purpose of a meta-package is to _ensure_ that a certain
> > > > set of packag
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
