On 2012-07-10 22:21, 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 policy, remove packages from > > Depends or use non-stock metapackage (which I personally don't like). > > One solution proposed some time ago was to have package managers mark > packages depended on as manually installed, whenever the user choses to > uninstall only one package depended by meta-pacakge.
Which leads to a) manual bookkeeping if I decide to remove rest of metapackage's dependencies later; b) if later the metapackage in the repository adds/removes dependencies, it isn't reflected at all in my system. > IMVHO Recommends makes more sense for packages that are not strictly > required Right, that's how they are defined in policy. > but maybe package managers should gain a > "Install-New-Recommends" option defaulting to true? Recommends are installed by default for quite a time already. -- Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com C++ GNU/Linux developer, Debian Developer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120710193859.GF5107@r500-debian
