On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 05:27:12PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote: > > > Please also remember that xdg-utils is Priority: optional while > > debianutils > > > is Essential: yes, Priority: required; meaning that if packages were to > > > use 'xdg-su-wrapper' they would have to Depend on xdg-utils pulling yet > > an > > > other package. > > > > > > This is a very weak argument: packages that implement XDG menus should > > really depend on xdg-utils (but of course not packages simply providing > > .desktop files). > > The proposal also includes .desktop files so I don't really see the > point of your statement, specially because I find pointless to depend > on xdg-utils just because you ship a given file (which I'm 100% sure > the package can perfectly live and work without it).
I do not understand your sentence. I was claiming that window managers/Desktop environment implementing XDG menu should depend on xdg-utils. This way, packages only providing .desktop files can assume that xdg-utils will be installed when needed without a dependency. > > > But other than that what do you think about moving su-to-root to > > > debianutils? > > > > > > Given what is su-to-root, I do not think it make sense to have it be > > Essential: yes. It is almost never used. > > Probably because not very much people know about it and because there > has been no concensus on what to use as a su wrapper. There is certainly a consensus to use it for (Debian) menu entry and it is seldom used. Cheers, Bill. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
