"Eugene V. Lyubimkin" <jac...@debian.org> writes: > Moreover, despite me understanding the picture, I still > has no clean, safe and documented way to do what I'd want in case the > package maintainer chosed Depends.
You have: install the pieces you want by hand. That's at least clean and safe. I do not think it is worth documenting explicitly. >> > Using Recommends for non-core parts of >> > metapackages' dependencies would nicely solve that. >> >> ...but I disagree that making meta-packages more elastic is a "nice" >> solution: is a hack covering over misguided users. Possible solutions >> could be improved documentation and improved design of package managers. > > ... 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). Changing the policy would be stupid. Demoting to Recommends would be less so, but if upstream considers a package a core part of a platform, recommends *is* wrong. If you disagree with upstream, you have the tools and the ability to customize your system: use a non-stock meta package. It's not hard. I'd be very curious why you're so against it, perhaps we can come up with a solution that satisfies you? -- |8] -- 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/874npexyso.fsf@algernon.balabit
