Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Depends/Recommends from libraries"):
> I feel like the problem here is that people are failing to fix bugs in
> their packages (unnecessary dependencies on libraries that have heavy
> dependencies),
No. The problem is that for an ordinary library, if package foo ever
wants to call functions in library bar, /usr/bin/foo ends up linked
against libbar.so. If the libbar runtime is not installed, foo fails
to start at all.
So foo ends up with a Depends on libbar - even if the bar
functionality in foo is an extreme niche feature, or even is only
relevant for some other package wombat (depending on foo).
If libbar has a Depends or Recommends on bar-daemon then default
installations of foo all have bar-daemon installed.
This is a problem because:
* bar-daemon may have undesirable security properties
* bar-daemon may need or want configuration, resulting in unnecessary
config management (including potential exposure of foo's users to
defects or lacunae in bar's config manageent, migrations, etc.)
* bar-daemon may be large (disk space, backup, and bandwidth costs,
especially if bar gets many updates)
* bar-daemon's dependency stack may itself be large, causing large
quantities of further unnecessary software to be installed,
increasing the risks of problems I've just discussed
If foo executed /usr/bin/bar directly, or connected to
/run/bar/socket, or something, then the maintainers of foo (and maybe
wombat) could control the strength of the dependencies themselves,
based on their knowledge of the likely need of foo's (or wombat's)
users for bar, and the error behaviour if the bar-related
functionality is requested without the right pieces installed.
But because foo must Depend on libbar, with our current arrangements
the strength of the dependency is determined by the dependencies of
libbar.
But the bar authors:
* do not know how or why libbar is called in any particular
circumstances
* have a natural tendency to assume that their package is more
important than perhaps it is in the global scheme of things
* are in any case unable to set the dependencies differently
for different callers
I think the right way to solve this problem is to declare that:
* When a library package is installed, the Depends and Recommends
of the library should be appropriate on the assumption that:
- the library package is only installed because it is the dormant
runtime-link-dependency of an executable or other library;
- none of the functions in the library are going to be
called.
Normally this will mean that the library will reference only other
library packages, on which it has runtime-link dependencies.
* If a library needs or wants additional software installed,
if and when functions in that library are called, this
should be documented in the /usr/share/doc/BAR/README.Debian.gz for
the corresponding -dev library package. (If churn is
likely, a library-specific virtual package name may need
to be documented, and provided as appropriate.)
* Programs which call functions in libraries (directly or indirectly)
should arrange to Depend on, Recommend, or Suggest, the appropriate
infrastructure, as documented by the -dev package(s).
This applies to libraries in C and C++. For libraries in other
languages, it depends on whether the conventional calling pattern for
the library, and the language, is to load it unconditionally (so that
anyone who might call it, no matter how rarely, must require it to be
installed), or to load it on demand.
Ian.
