On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 12:15:59AM +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
> Thanks, you hinted me to discover it:
>
> $ aptitude why banshee synaptic
> p banshee Recommends brasero
> p brasero Recommends gnome-mount
> p gnome-mount Depends libeel2-2.20
> p libeel2-2.20 Recommends synaptic

A library recommends synaptic? That just sesems downright stupid.

That is not where I would have expected to see that dependancy. I guess
it provides a widget that calls synaptic, so someone thought it would
make sense to have synaptic installed even though many other widgets in
the package might be perfectly useful with out it.

I think at most synaptic deserves a suggests in that case.

--
Len Sorensen


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Lennart Sorensen a écrit :
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 12:15:59AM +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
>> Thanks, you hinted me to discover it:
>>
>> $ aptitude why banshee synaptic
>> p banshee Recommends brasero
>> p brasero Recommends gnome-mount
>> p gnome-mount Depends libeel2-2.20
>> p libeel2-2.20 Recommends synaptic
>
> A library recommends synaptic? That just sesems downright stupid.
>
> That is not where I would have expected to see that dependancy. I guess
> it provides a widget that calls synaptic, so someone thought it would
> make sense to have synaptic installed even though many other widgets in
> the package might be perfectly useful with out it.
>
> I think at most synaptic deserves a suggests in that case.
>

I am absolutely not sure of myself, but I think this is due to the new
"missing plugins installation procedure" that launches synaptic to
install new packages if an adequate plugin is missing (but available).

I can be wrong, too.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Le vendredi 13 juin 2008 Ã* 16:03 +0200, Jean-Christophe Dubacq a écrit :
> > I think at most synaptic deserves a suggests in that case.
>
> I am absolutely not sure of myself, but I think this is due to the new
> "missing plugins installation procedure" that launches synaptic to
> install new packages if an adequate plugin is missing (but available).

The stuff you describe is gnome-app-install. OTOH, libeel is responsible
for proposing to install packages in the “Open with� dialog.

I’ve made synaptic and app-install-data a Suggests and moved the
Recommends to nautilus. This will be part of the next upload.

Cheers,
--
.'`.
: :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code.
`. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to
`- our own. Resistance is futile.

(d-qa CCed because of the status of esound; please CC me on replies)

On Friday 13 June 2008, you wrote:
> There are plenty of other examples. Here's a few of my favorites (look
> up what packages depend on these libs yourself):
> - libadns1 -> libadns1-bin (test tools/utils)
> - libdjvulibre21 -> djvulibre-desktop (WTF?)
> - libesd0 -> esound-clients
> - libgpod3 -> libgpod-common (I don't have an iPod, but do want amarok)
> - libpcsclite1 -> pcscd (a daemon even)
> - libsane -> sane-utils (OK, I do have a scanner; but how many don't?)
>
> No, I did not file bugs for these yet, but now that I've assembled the
> list I probably will.

Bugs filed now for these (or info added to existing bugs).


BTW, it looks as esound is in desperate need of a new maintainer.
Last upload in 2006, new upstream versions available and loads of open
(some trivial packaging) bugs.

Also, the package has had uploads of new upstream versions to Ubuntu
without getting similar uploads in Debian, but even there not by its
Debian maintainer who AFAIK is an Canonical employee. Go figure...

Cheers,
FJP

Christian Perrier writes ("Re: Non-related 'Recommends' dependencies - bug or not?"):
> So, well, in such case, closing with "I think this is not a bug
> because synaptic is recommended by another package in the dependency
> chain" would have been better. Even better would have been to
> investigate the dependency chain and reassign the bug properly, with a
> short note to the bug submitter to explain him how to do such
> investigation himself next time...

I think it is quite wrong for a maintainer to close a bug report just
because they think the bug is due to a problem with another package.

Bugs which are filed against the wrong package should be reassigned.
If a maintainer of a busy central package doesn't have time to deal
with all the reports then I think it's quite fair enough for them to
reassign the bug for a more specific maintainer to investigate.

For example, if a bug about a glibc-generated warning of program
misbehaviour is filed against glibc, the glibc maintainers would be
quite wrong to just close it, but quite right to reassign it to the
package of the apparently offending program without doing any
investigation or even any great deal of thought.

Ian.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org