On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 09:28 -0500, Jason Clinton wrote: > On Tuesday 13 September 2005 12:21 am, Marc Wilson wrote: > > Because the whole reason the "gnome-desktop-environment" *meta-package* > > exists is to give you a complete Gnome. Not Gnome minus whatever *this* > > cluebie doesn't like, whatever *that* cluebie doesn't like, etc. > > > > If you don't like what the meta-package installs, don't use the > > gods-be-damned thing. Install one of the sub-packages, install whatever > > parts of Gnome float your boat. The dependencies of the meta-package tell > > you what they all are. > > I think you intentionally misunderstand what he's saying. He's saying that > 50% > of the gnome desktop shouldn't be removed by aptitude because one packages is > missing from the "gnome experience" metapackage. And maybe it shouldn't have > even moved in to testing if a dependacy wasn't met?
That's why "we" don't like aptitude. It too aggressively removes things. > It is not possible to do what you claim. The only way to get the > subcomponents > in to your system is to mark them as manual installs. And even then other > fundamental Gnome components won't installed because the gnome-multimedia > metapackage conditions aren't met. You seem to fundamentally misunderstand > the complexity of gnome intradependacies. Sound-juicer not being present > forces aptitude to remove approximately 50% of Gnome to avoid unmet > dependacies. If things like this trip you up, don't use meta-packages. > Further, marking packages as manual installs when you later intend to use the > metapackage to track upgrades is a bad idea. Finding all the packages you > marked as 'manual' and remarking them as 'auto' is no simple task. That won't happen if you use apt-get, and install apps manually. Look at the gnome-desktop-environment and then "# apt-get install" the ones you want, or install everything except that which you don't want. Yes, that's initially more time-consuming than installing g-d-e, but it *does* work. Question: why use a metapackage to track upgrades, when packages are already installed manually? Or is this an apt-get vs. aptitude issue? > > Oh, wait... that would mean you'd actually have a clue about what testing > > is, wouldn't it? > > This was rude and unnessary. And it seems that he understands what testing > is: > a testing ground for canidates for "stable". Why something this obviously not > "stable" fell in to testing is a question I'm curious about, myself. > Especially since an unmet dependacy is supposed to keep this from happening > automatically. In this case it seems that someone named 'Volorn' forced Gnome > to fall in to testing when it wasn't ready. > > > > Why should I *have* to install sound-juicer? > > > > You don't. See above. > > You do or several things won't install. Maybe it's because I'm running sid, use apt-get and already have sound-juicer installed, but this command only removes sound-juicer: # apt-get remove sound-juicer [snip] > Because stable is too old for a desktop. And unstable is too new for a > desktop. Testing is just right (usually). In your opinion. IMNSHO, unstable is a good desktop. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Johnson, Jr. Temporarily not of Jefferson, LA USA PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail. Tatoo in haste, regret in leisure.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
