-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hello all.

Recently I've noticed that 'Recommends' chain for package 'banshee' leads to packages,
non-related with media-playing at all, for example, 'synaptic'. Then I filed the minor bug
[1].

Bug was closed by maintainer with note "it is not a bug". Is he right?


[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=485759

- --
Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, Ukrainian C++ developer.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFIUXGJchorMMFUmYwRArPkAJ4nfhBi5v7VCyKiyvvEyO LyxGA9owCfW5Gf
3TQKjVDIFEsbIsl/ypLmy+U=
=Vpq+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


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

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 09:57:13PM +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
> Recently I've noticed that 'Recommends' chain for package 'banshee' leads to packages,
> non-related with media-playing at all, for example, 'synaptic'. Then I filed the minor bug
> [1].
>
> Bug was closed by maintainer with note "it is not a bug". Is he right?

Well I guess if the chain is:

banshee -> ... -> gnome -> synaptic, then I would say that's proper.

What is the chain to get there?

--
Len Sorensen


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

On 12-Jun-08, 13:57 (CDT), "Eugene V. Lyubimkin" <jackyf.devel@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bug was closed by maintainer with note "it is not a bug". Is he right?

Banshee's maintainer isn't (and can't) be responsible for other packages
recommends.

It looks like the bug is in libgstreamer-plugins-base0.10-0 which has
the gnome-app-install->synaptic recommends chain.

Steve


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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 09:57:13PM +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
>> Recently I've noticed that 'Recommends' chain for package 'banshee' leads to packages,
>> non-related with media-playing at all, for example, 'synaptic'. Then I filed the minor bug
>> [1].
>>
>> Bug was closed by maintainer with note "it is not a bug". Is he right?
>
> Well I guess if the chain is:
>
> banshee -> ... -> gnome -> synaptic, then I would say that's proper.
>
> What is the chain to get there?
>
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

- --
Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, Ukrainian C++ developer.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFIUZIPchorMMFUmYwRAj+dAJ9+nzgQofZodVrp1xd83C kAtkXViQCgpL/l
t+hc61dzk+r/cTEMXNr6RQw=
=w7Qa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 12-Jun-08, 13:57 (CDT), "Eugene V. Lyubimkin" <jackyf.devel@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Bug was closed by maintainer with note "it is not a bug". Is he right?
>
> Banshee's maintainer isn't (and can't) be responsible for other packages
> recommends.
>
> It looks like the bug is in libgstreamer-plugins-base0.10-0 which has
> the gnome-app-install->synaptic recommends chain.
>
> Steve
>
>
libgstreamer-plugins-base0.10-0 is only suggests gnome-app-install.
I've found the actual chain:

$ 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

May I file a bug to libeel2-2.20? Or is this chain acceptable? And, for possible future
similar issues, is debian-devel mailing list right place to discuss them in?





- --
Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, Ukrainian C++ developer.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFIUZVhchorMMFUmYwRAvdTAKDAH25Vyd30hOo9x309Uu tBJ9zVJwCeOUhY
tHdWuhzSdBA4tWw06rHAGps=
=Ssyu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


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

Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
> libgstreamer-plugins-base0.10-0 is only suggests gnome-app-install.
> I've found the actual chain:
>
> p libeel2-2.20 Recommends synaptic

To me this definitely looks wrong.

In general libs should be extremely careful about using Recommends for
applications, especially if they are used by other generic applications
or even pulled in almost by default by desktop environments.

Dependencies should in principle be "top down", not "bottom up". And
defining dependencies from libs to apps is almost per definition "bottom
up".

The Recommends here should probably be replaced by a Suggests, same may be
true for app-install-data, which it also recommended.

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; I don't have a smartcard reader)
- 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.

The thing is that loads of people will get these libs pulled in. Hardly
any of them will ever need/want/use/miss the apps currently installed
alongside. Apps should pull in libs, not the other way around.

Maintainers, try this if you have a lib recommending apps:
$ wget http://alioth.debian.org/~fjp/debtree/debtree_0.7.2_all.deb
# dpkg -i debtree_0.7.2_all.deb
$ debtree --no-conflicts --no-versions <lib> | dot -Tpng -o <lib>.png
$ $viewer <lib>.png

Anything behind black arrows (recommends) from your lib is possibly pulled
in needlessly. The result for libdjvulibre21 is amazing; it's so amazing
that I did not manage to create a viewable image for it, but the .dot
file is here [1].
See the debtree website for info and other usages of debtree (shameless
plug ;-)

A few examples where recommends (IMHO) probably do make sense:
- libdbus -> dbus
- libfam0 -> fam
- a number of recommends of udev

> And, for possible future similar issues, is debian-devel mailing list
> right place to discuss them in?

IMO, it's the perfect place to discuss this. Especially as long as there
seems to be no general agreement on the use of recommends or as long as
too many packages get it wrong.

It would be good to have a solid discussion that people filing bugs can
refer to.

Cheers,
FJP

[1] http://alioth.debian.org/~fjp/tmp/dejavu.dot

Frans Pop wrote:

> Dependencies should in principle be "top down", not "bottom up". And
> defining dependencies from libs to apps is almost per definition "bottom
> up".

As a nice experiment (you need testing or unstable's aptitude for this):

% aptitude search '?section(^libs) ?recommends(!?section(libs) !?section(doc)
!?section(python) !?section(perl) !?section(doc) !?section(libdevel) )' | wc -l
139

--

Felipe Sateler


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

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 12:31:22AM -0400, Felipe Sateler <fsateler@gmail.com> was heard to say:
> Frans Pop wrote:
>
> > Dependencies should in principle be "top down", not "bottom up". And
> > defining dependencies from libs to apps is almost per definition "bottom
> > up".
>
> As a nice experiment (you need testing or unstable's aptitude for this):
>
> % aptitude search '?section(^libs) ?recommends(!?section(libs) !?section(doc)
> !?section(python) !?section(perl) !?section(doc) !?section(libdevel) )' | wc -l
> 139

The equivalent for older aptitudes is this:

aptitude search '~s^libs ~Drecommends!~slibs !~sdoc !~spython !~sperl !~slibdevel)' | wc -l

Daniel


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

Quoting Steve Greenland (steveg@moregruel.net):
> On 12-Jun-08, 13:57 (CDT), "Eugene V. Lyubimkin" <jackyf.devel@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Bug was closed by maintainer with note "it is not a bug". Is he right?
>
> Banshee's maintainer isn't (and can't) be responsible for other packages
> recommends.


Not blaming anyone here as I haven't seen the bug report, but if the
bug was closed with "it is not a bug" only, then I understand Eugene's
question.

Most of us maintainers work at the limit of the load we can sustain
and it happens to all of us to answer a bug report with some very very
short comment....which might be relevant or enough for us, but not the
bug reporter.

I really suggest package maintainers to consider more careful
interaction with bug submitters and take time to explain why we are
doing an action which might be controversial. Closing a bug report
without action falls in that category.

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...

Yes, that takes time, but it's certainly worth it. As package
maintainers, our source of information are users and we really should
appear as slapping the nice people who care to report bugs...

Again, more easy to say or write than really apply. I think I've
already "virtually slapped" some bug submitters myself, at some
moments...

Le vendredi 13 juin 2008 à 07:18 +0200, Christian Perrier a écrit :

> Yes, that takes time, but it's certainly worth it. As package
> maintainers, our source of information are users and we really should
> appear as slapping the nice people who care to report bugs...
>

+1

This would stand in particular for maintainers of linux kernel images
packages which have a habit in being really short on explanation, IMHO.

My 2 cents,
--
Olivier BERGER <olivier.berger@it-sudparis.eu>
http://www-public.it-sudparis.eu/~berger_o/ - OpenPGP-Id: 1024D/6B829EEC
Ingénieur Recherche - Dept INF
Institut TELECOM, SudParis (http://www.it-sudparis.eu/), Evry (France)


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