FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 01-19-2008, 07:01 PM
Ivan Shmakov
 
Default loosing dependencies

Currently, the `fortunes' package depends on either
`fortune-mod' or `fortune-min':

$ apt-cache show fortunes
Package: fortunes
...
Source: fortune-mod
Version: 1:1.99.1-3
Provides: fortune-cookie-db
Depends: fortune-mod (>= 9708-12), fortunes-min
...

Does it make sense, provided that the fortune files may as well
be read by M-x fortune in Emacs, or even by a plain `less'?

And more generally, does it make sense for a pure-data package
to have non-empty Depends:?


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 01-19-2008, 07:59 PM
Ralf Treinen
 
Default loosing dependencies

On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 02:01:51AM +0600, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
> Currently, the `fortunes' package depends on either
> `fortune-mod' or `fortune-min':
>
> $ apt-cache show fortunes
> Package: fortunes
> ...
> Source: fortune-mod
> Version: 1:1.99.1-3
> Provides: fortune-cookie-db
> Depends: fortune-mod (>= 9708-12), fortunes-min
> ...
>
> Does it make sense, provided that the fortune files may as well
> be read by M-x fortune in Emacs, or even by a plain `less'?

Probably not, it seems to me that you are right, and that this dependency
should be relaxed.

> And more generally, does it make sense for a pure-data package
> to have non-empty Depends:?

I can imagine that there are cases in which data is really specific
to a particular application, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

Could you please file a bug report against the fortune package?

-Ralf.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 01-20-2008, 04:48 AM
Ivan Shmakov
 
Default loosing dependencies

>>>>> Ralf Treinen <treinen@free.fr> writes:

>> Currently, the `fortunes' package depends on either `fortune-mod' or
>> `fortune-min':

[...]

>> Does it make sense, provided that the fortune files may as well be
>> read by M-x fortune in Emacs, or even by a plain `less'?

> Probably not, it seems to me that you are right, and that this
> dependency should be relaxed.

ACK.

>> And more generally, does it make sense for a pure-data package to
>> have non-empty Depends:?

> I can imagine that there are cases in which data is really specific
> to a particular application, but that doesn't seem to be the case
> here.

But, well, one may probably find some uses for that data even
outside of that application? I hardly believe that there're
data that's completely useless without a particular application
or applications, be it icons, sounds, or LUTs for a particular
scientific code.

The only situation where I see it's appropriate for an
`Architecture: all' package to contain an another package in
it's `Depends:' is where the package also provides scripts which
require that other package to be run.

> Could you please file a bug report against the fortune package?

Done [1].

[1] http://bugs.debian.org/461651


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

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:25 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org