On dim., 2016-06-12 at 04:21 -0700, ian_br...@mail.ru wrote: > On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 12:45:23 +0200 > Yves-Alexis Perez <cor...@debian.org> wrote: > > > > xfce4-volumed doesn't seem to exist in Xfce 4.12, but the > > > xfce4-settings package still recommends it. > > > > Indeed. > > This situation is perfectly proper and correct, in your opinion?
No. > > > > This is especially bad, because xfce4-volumed then pulls in the > > > entire gstreamer0.10 set of packages, which are otherwise totally > > > unnecessary and obsolete. > > > > I don't parse that actually. Either it pulls in volumed and then > > pulling gstreamer0.10 is fine, or it doesn't and the point is moot. > > xfce4-settings does pull in xfce4-volumed, which does pull in > gstreamer0.10, whereas gstreamer1.0 is the current version. > > Therefore 26MB of totally useless packages are installed, because of > what you claim is not a false dependency. > > > # apt-get remove libgstreamer0.10-0 > Reading package lists... Done > Building dependency tree > Reading state information... Done > The following packages were automatically installed and are no longer > required: > libcdaudio1 libkeybinder0 libslv2-9 > Use 'apt autoremove' to remove them. > The following packages will be REMOVED: > gstreamer0.10-alsa* gstreamer0.10-chromaprint* gstreamer0.10-gconf* > gstreamer0.10-gnomevfs* gstreamer0.10-nice* gstreamer0.10-plugins-bad* > gstreamer0.10-plugins-base* gstreamer0.10-plugins-good* gstreamer0.10- > pulseaudio* > gstreamer0.10-x* libgstreamer-plugins-bad0.10-0* libgstreamer-plugins- > base0.10-0* > libgstreamer0.10-0* > 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 13 to remove and 17 not upgraded. > After this operation, 26.1 MB disk space will be freed. > Do you want to continue? [Y/n] > > > Whether or not this situation is "fine", is a matter of opinion. Of > course, the world could end tomorrow, and then this bug report, along > with all others, would be totally unnecessary. > > > > Please remove this false dependency. > > > > It's not a false dependency, it's just that the package has been > > removed and the dependency line not updated. > > If a dependency on a currently non-existent package is "not false", then > I wonder what meaning you think the word has. > > Again, do you think this situation is perfectly proper and correct? Do > you propose that it should persist indefinitely? Was it incorrect to > file a bug report describing it? After all, what's the purpose of filing > ANY bug reports; the final collapse of the universe will eventually > happen anyway, rendering the whole point moot, as you say. > I honestly don't know what you're talking about, and I frankly don't care. This will be fixed in the next package upload anyway. -- Yves-Alexis
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
