Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Steve Greenland wrote: >> Sure, it allows some one to install foo-data without the program that >> uses it? So what? It's unlikely to happen by accident, and annoying to >> those doing it intentionally. (Just like those foo-docs that depend on >> foo, although they are mostly fixed, now.) > > I don't buy the often-made argument that foo-data packages are > generally useful to install just to look at the beautiful data.
As a casual user, if I want the "foo" functionality, I'll probably want to install foo and not even look at foo-data. Another point of view of this problem can be expressed this way: - foo without foo-data is *broken* hence the need for a dependency. - foo-data without foo is not broken (because there's not program to invoke), but is *useless*. May be a better solution would be to flag foo-data as "useless alone". (I would love to be able to hide from aptitude all these "useless alone" packages so I could sift faster in the package list). HTH -- Dominique Dumont "Delivering successful solutions requires giving people what they need, not what they want." Kurt Bittner -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
