On mer., 2011-08-31 at 11:59 +0100, Wolodja Wentland wrote:
>
> Could you elaborate on your reasons and your intentions for making the
> distinction?
Policy 7.2, mostly, and the fact depends are installed (obviously),
recommends are installed by default (but that can be disabled and one
can remov
> Wolodja Wentland writes:
> is there a specific reason why metapackages depend rather then
> recommend packages they are meant to pull in?
> The rationale behind this question is [0] that we see a plethora of
> users in #debian who ask questions like: "Why did apt remove all my
> syste
* Josselin Mouette [2011-09-01 09:52 +0200]:
> I think we could solve a lot of those problems by treating metapackages
> specially in APT.
Ubuntu has a section "metapackages", introducing such a section in
Debian could be the first step to treat metapackages specially.
Carsten
--
To UNSUBSCRI
Le lundi 29 août 2011 à 16:40 +0100, Wolodja Wentland a écrit :
> is there a specific reason why metapackages depend rather then recommend
> packages they are meant to pull in?
There are several reasons for that - at least for the GNOME ones.
The first one is to guarantee that newly added packag
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 17:37 +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> On mar., 2011-08-30 at 16:11 +0100, Wolodja Wentland wrote:
> >
> > I agree that a general change of all metapackages is probably not a good
> > idea,
> > but I think that changing the root-nodes of the metapackage tree (i.e.
> > met
but if you mean strict "meta" as in it has no files but depends on real
specific libraried packages ...
as far as I know strict "meta" are already well versioned and any package, such as perl, acts as a
"meta" in some way by depending on other versions of packages to "fully install" - in the s
On mar., 2011-08-30 at 16:11 +0100, Wolodja Wentland wrote:
>
> I agree that a general change of all metapackages is probably not a good idea,
> but I think that changing the root-nodes of the metapackage tree (i.e.
> metapackages like gnome, xfce4, kde-full, ...) is a sensible change. It is in
>
Let me say this (i'm working on a new tsort you can say - but slowly as it's
not my day job).
if "Virtual package" is the same as "meta package"... (which ends up being a simple lookup before
package list ordering / dropping)
Why worry about Recommends or Suggests ? Only after dpkg develops
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 12:32 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Wolodja Wentland (30/08/2011):
> > It is my impression that the problems mentioned in my initial mail can
> > be solved by changing metapackages (like those mentioned by Cyril in
> > his reply) to use Recommends instead of Depends.
> >
On 30/08/2011 16:46, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 11:27:48AM +0100, Wolodja Wentland wrote:
>> It is my impression that the problems mentioned in my initial mail can be
>> solved by changing metapackages (like those mentioned by Cyril in his
>> reply) to use Recommends instead of
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 11:27:48AM +0100, Wolodja Wentland wrote:
> > > is there a specific reason why metapackages depend rather then recommend
> > > packages they are meant to pull in?
>
> I never meant to imply that *all* metapackages use Depends.
For my perception of your sentence at least a
Wolodja Wentland (30/08/2011):
> It is my impression that the problems mentioned in my initial mail can
> be solved by changing metapackages (like those mentioned by Cyril in
> his reply) to use Recommends instead of Depends.
>
> I am, however, not entirely sure if there are any good reasons for
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 09:26 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 04:40:30PM +0100, Wolodja Wentland wrote:
> > is there a specific reason why metapackages depend rather then recommend
> > packages they are meant to pull in?
> The statement that metapackages depend from packages
Andreas Tille (30/08/2011):
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 04:40:30PM +0100, Wolodja Wentland wrote:
> > is there a specific reason why metapackages depend rather then
> > recommend packages they are meant to pull in?
>
> The statement that metapackages depend from packages is not true in
> general.
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 04:40:30PM +0100, Wolodja Wentland wrote:
> is there a specific reason why metapackages depend rather then recommend
> packages they are meant to pull in?
The statement that metapackages depend from packages is not true in
general. A counter example are those metapackages
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 04:40:30PM +0100, Wolodja Wentland wrote:
> they decided to remove one of (typically) gnome's dependencies, which
> caused the metapackage to be removed as well.
That also causes an effect of "GNOME gets removed!" even without any
additional autoremoved packages :(
--
WBR
Hi all,
is there a specific reason why metapackages depend rather then recommend
packages they are meant to pull in?
The rationale behind this question is [0] that we see a plethora of users in
#debian who ask questions like:
"Why did apt remove all my system??⸘one!one!eleven!"
and we h
17 matches
Mail list logo
