Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org> writes: > I think the use case is users who are being control freaks about the set of > packages on their systems. If the set of packages being pulled in as > recommends is *wrong* (they don't fit the Policy definition of Recommends), > bugs should be filed against those packages and be fixed. If the set of > packages is *right*, then there's no good reason to give users a big "ignore > Policy" button at install time.
The number of "yes, we want this" answers shows that the current set is wrong. I think the problem is that I as an administrator don't know whether my installation is "unusual" or not, making it hard to know whether I should file a bug against an unwanted Recommends or not. In fact, recommending is self-fulfilling. Only the unusual installations will avoid installing the recommended package... One example just out of my head: I've found that it is nearly impossible to avoid avahi-daemon if APT::Install-Recommends is true. There are multiple completely unrelated (IMHO) packages recommending it, like sane-utils and rhythmbox. But are these bugs? I guess a system without avahi-daemon is pretty unusual, given the number of recommends pointing in that direction. Should I start filing bugs anyway? I'm hesitating, and have chosen to set APT::Install-Recommends False instead. Bjørn -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
