David Paleino <da...@debian.org> wrote: [...] > With the *autoremove* command being now widely used, it can become > difficult for a user to install a meta-package but some packages it > depends on.
I do not understand this, is there a word missing? [...] > This document thus tries to introduce a new mechanism for > meta-packages, which would be marked with **Meta-Package: yes** in the > debian/control control file, and whose dependencies removal would not > cause the dependant removal. Think of this as a new Recommends field, [...] > Backwards Compatibility > ----------------------- > We started thinking about "Meta-Depends" fields, but soon abandoned the > idea. This is because this field would break existing package managers > which haven't implemented yet this DEP. That's why we chose to keep > Depends, and add an extra field, called **Meta-Package**. [...] The current proposal is not backwards compatible since it fundamentally changes the meaning of Depends. Depends is transitive. If A depends on B, and B depends on C. A can rely on functionality proveided by C. Your proposal breaks that, since it allows removal of C (assuming B is a meta package), keeping it installed in a broken state. I am not convinced that the gain (easily install KDE without kmail, or something like that) is worth this price. It changes a clear relation to something that most of the times works as expected, except for some special cases. cu andreas -- `What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are so grateful to you.' `I sew his ears on from time to time, sure' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org