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 07-10-2012, 07:26 PM
Gergely Nagy
 
Default Recommends for metapackages

Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@rath.org> writes:

> Gergely Nagy <algernon@balabit.hu> writes:
>> But, to cut the story short, attached to this mail is a script you can
>> use to take any metapackage, and remove (or demote) any of its
>> dependencies. It echoes a control-file thingy, combining it with equivs
>> is left as an excercise to the reader.
>
> If I'm not mistaken, that means that the demoted dependency will get
> pulled in again on the next upgrade of the metapackage, or that I have
> to put the metapackage on hold and will loose any demotions and
> promotions of other packages in future metapackage versions.

No, you name the local meta package differently. No need to put it on
hold or anything. If you want to follow the original meta, set things up
so that the local gets updated once in a while.

That's doable with an Apt::Update::Post-Invoke hook, as I believe I said
in the mail above.

--
|8]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87pq834dva.fsf@luthien.mhp">http://lists.debian.org/87pq834dva.fsf@luthien.mhp
 
Old 07-10-2012, 07:27 PM
Gergely Nagy
 
Default Recommends for metapackages

Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@rath.org> writes:

> Gergely Nagy <algernon@balabit.hu> writes:
>> For the cases where one wants to have most of the stuff installed that
>> the meta-package would pull in, but not all, solutions already exist.
>
> What solutions do you mean?

Installing the pieces one wants by hand, for one. Automating that with a
custom meta-package as another, using my script for the automation as a
third. Using equivs to create a dummy stub for the unwanted packages
(eg, n-m) and using the meta package as-is as a fourth.

There are probably other, similarly straightforward options, but four's
enough for a start.

--
|8]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87liir4dsk.fsf@luthien.mhp">http://lists.debian.org/87liir4dsk.fsf@luthien.mhp
 
Old 07-10-2012, 07:38 PM
"Eugene V. Lyubimkin"
 
Default Recommends for metapackages

On 2012-07-10 22:21, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Ma, 10 iul 12, 22:07:10, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
> >
> > ... And I disagree with that. No solution can override policy's "all
> > Depends must be satisfied". If one choose to support the "exclude from
> > metapackage" one either has to change the policy, remove packages from
> > Depends or use non-stock metapackage (which I personally don't like).
>
> One solution proposed some time ago was to have package managers mark
> packages depended on as manually installed, whenever the user choses to
> uninstall only one package depended by meta-pacakge.

Which leads to

a) manual bookkeeping if I decide to remove rest of metapackage's
dependencies later;
b) if later the metapackage in the repository adds/removes dependencies,
it isn't reflected at all in my system.

> IMVHO Recommends makes more sense for packages that are not strictly
> required

Right, that's how they are defined in policy.

> but maybe package managers should gain a
> "Install-New-Recommends" option defaulting to true?

Recommends are installed by default for quite a time already.

--
Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com
C++ GNU/Linux developer, Debian Developer


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120710193859.GF5107@r500-debian
 
Old 07-10-2012, 08:31 PM
Jonas Smedegaard
 
Default Recommends for metapackages

On 12-07-10 at 08:16pm, Noel David Torres Tao wrote:
> > "Eugene V. Lyubimkin" <jackyf@debian.org> writes:
> [...]
> >
> > Well, in case of GNOME, upstream considers n-m to be part of the
> > core system, to the best of my knowledge. If upstream does so, so
> > should we.
>
> No. That's why we have our own distribution instead of just a
> collection of unpatched packages compiled from source.
>
> Debian patches do not only include security or functionality bugs.
> They include also design bugs.

...and our own distribution consist of multiple packages, some of which
may happen to match upstream.

It is a feature (which each user is free to avoid by not using it!) for
Debian to include a meta-package that pulls in that eeeevil n-m, not a
bug.


- Jonas

...who dislikes GNOME and network-manager but sometimes use the latter

--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
 
Old 07-10-2012, 08:45 PM
Jonas Smedegaard
 
Default Recommends for metapackages

On 12-07-10 at 10:07pm, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
> On 2012-07-10 20:15, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > On 12-07-10 at 07:35pm, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
> > > On 2012-07-10 18:10, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > > The very purpose of a meta-package is to _ensure_ that a certain
> > > > set of packages is installed, not just recommend them: All (not
> > > > only most) users of that package need all its dependencies
> > > > satisfied
> > >
> > > My definition of meta-package is less strict than yours. I as user
> > > sometimes want '[meta]package X, but without packages Y and Z',
> > > and your definition absolutely rules that out.
> > >
> > > I saw many questions on forums like
> > >
> > > "I did '$packagemanager install $metapackage' and then after
> > > '$packagemanager remove $singlepackage', why $packagemanager now
> > > wants to remove all $metapackage?"
> > >
> > > , so I know I'm not alone.
> >
> > [...]
> > You being alone does not make you right.
> >
> > A package manager wanting to remove all dependencies of a
> > meta-package is quite sensible - when you understand the sense of
> > it. Until then it is utterly confusing.
>
> As someone who developed a high-level package manager for Debian from
> scratch (including the autoremoval functionality) I'm pretty sure I
> understand the sense of it.

Fair enough. Sourry if it sounded like I was talking down to you, that
wasn't my intention. I simply meant to acknowledge that users can be
confused - I sure have been (and problably still is about some things,
time will - hopefully - tell).


> My message was: users who don't (yet) understand the full picture,
> find that behavior confusing, and it takes time to explain. Moreover,
> despite me understanding the picture, I still has no clean, safe and
> documented way to do what I'd want in case the package maintainer
> chosed Depends.

Acknowledged.


> Next, I don't pretend I'm "right", I do pretend there are >= 1 person
> who don't need all dependencies of the metapackage installed, and
> hence your 'All [...] users of that package need all its dependencies
> satisfied' clause is wrong. You can argue that it's not right for
> Debian to support that use case, that's fine.

I do support the use case of not needing all packages depended on by
some meta-package.

My point was (and still is) that those should not use that meta-package:
The users of a meta-package is the users of what the meta-package does,
which is to pull in a certain set of other packages.

It might very well be that some other meta-packages has the different
purpose of only _recommending_ a set of packages, but evidently this one
does not.

No, I do not find it right for Debian to mandate meta-packages to only
recommend when some users need only a subset of the offerings of said
meta-package: There will _always_ be some users needing only a subset of
things, rendering all dependencies "wrong" by that logic!

(...as has already been pointed out by others)


> > > Using Recommends for non-core parts of metapackages' dependencies
> > > would nicely solve that.
> >
> > ...but I disagree that making meta-packages more elastic is a "nice"
> > solution: is a hack covering over misguided users. Possible
> > solutions could be improved documentation and improved design of
> > package managers.
>
> ... And I disagree with that. No solution can override policy's "all
> Depends must be satisfied". If one choose to support the "exclude from
> metapackage" one either has to change the policy, remove packages from
> Depends or use non-stock metapackage (which I personally don't like).

You need not redefine "depends" to not mean "depends": Simply do not use
that meta-package if you do not want _all_ its dependencies installed.


- Jonas

--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
 
Old 07-10-2012, 08:53 PM
Andrei POPESCU
 
Default Recommends for metapackages

On Ma, 10 iul 12, 22:38:59, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
> On 2012-07-10 22:21, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>
> > but maybe package managers should gain a
> > "Install-New-Recommends" option defaulting to true?
^^^^^

> Recommends are installed by default for quite a time already.

Sure, but not new ones

Kind regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
 
Old 07-10-2012, 09:46 PM
Jonathan Nieder
 
Default Recommends for metapackages

Hi,

Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

> No, I do not find it right for Debian to mandate meta-packages to only
> recommend when some users need only a subset of the offerings of said
> meta-package: There will _always_ be some users needing only a subset of
> things, rendering all dependencies "wrong" by that logic!

Now hold on a second.

I don't think Eugene would advocate any such sweeping principle as the
one described above. One thing he did say is that he is against is a
magic "metapackages" section transforming Depends into something
weaker. I imagine you'd agree with him about that.

So where is the point of disagreement here?

There is a danger in overgeneralizing too early. As far as I can
tell, the actual problem at hand is:

- The gnome-core metapackage is very useful to some people. It helps
people install a standard GNOME installation, keep it installed,
and remove it later if they wish, using a single package.

- Some of the same people do not want to have network-manager
installed. They also do not want to have network-manager
fake-installed using equivs because they want to notice if they try
to install something that actually requires network-manager.

Given the above problem description, using a Recommends in the
metapackage would seem like a pretty reasonable solution.

Unfortunately there is another complication that throws a spanner in
the works:

- Some higher-level package managers do not honor Recommends
correctly (I do not know the details of this and would love to see
a link to the relevant bug), and therefore the Debian GNOME
maintainers are very wary of using Recommends in their metapackages

See? Two reasonable perspectives. Nothing left to argue about.

I'd encourage anyone wanting to move forward to take all three items
listed above into account.

Hope that helps,
Jonathan


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120710214627.GA20337@burratino
 
Old 07-10-2012, 10:08 PM
David Kalnischkies
 
Default Recommends for metapackages

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Andrei POPESCU
<andreimpopescu@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Ma, 10 iul 12, 22:38:59, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
>> On 2012-07-10 22:21, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>>
>> > but maybe package managers should gain a
>> > "Install-New-Recommends" option defaulting to true?
> ^^^^^
>
>> Recommends are installed by default for quite a time already.
>
> Sure, but not new ones

Oh really?

Then please tell me what this code does:
http://anonscm.debian.org/loggerhead/apt/debian-sid/annotate/head:/apt-pkg/depcache.cc#L1103

(and yes, minus refactoring and bugfixing, this code is older than the
switch to enable installation of recommends by default for lenny …)


Now, you might as well talk about other package managers, but if so,
please be specific so that a problem can be fixed rather than talked
about every two years in a thread about what should be installed by
default or not in a very unspecific "doesn't work at all" way.

It is enough if we talk in that style about the package in question,
we don't need to extend that style to everything else in the thread …
(I wouldn't mind if we would stop talking in that style at all, but I
don't use n-m, so in that specific case, I don't care …)


Best regards

David Kalnischkies, who doesn't know whether to
laugh or cry about these kind of threads …


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: CAAZ6_fDTAydt1UBp08yf0d8L0JUSFFY1rZYHVmvztFCjeOcEw g@mail.gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/CAAZ6_fDTAydt1UBp08yf0d8L0JUSFFY1rZYHVmvztFCjeOcEw g@mail.gmail.com
 
Old 07-11-2012, 03:04 AM
Ivan Shmakov
 
Default Recommends for metapackages

>>>>> Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> writes:

[…]

> It is a feature (which each user is free to avoid by not using it!)
> for Debian to include a meta-package that pulls in that eeeevil n-m,
> not a bug.

… And what exactly this “feature” gives to the user?

[…]

--
FSF associate member #7257 http://sf-day.org/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 86d3430zhm.fsf@gray.siamics.net">http://lists.debian.org/86d3430zhm.fsf@gray.siamics.net
 
Old 07-11-2012, 05:55 AM
Andrei POPESCU
 
Default Recommends for metapackages

On Mi, 11 iul 12, 00:08:18, David Kalnischkies wrote:
>
> Then please tell me what this code does:
> http://anonscm.debian.org/loggerhead/apt/debian-sid/annotate/head:/apt-pkg/depcache.cc#L1103
>
> (and yes, minus refactoring and bugfixing, this code is older than the
> switch to enable installation of recommends by default for lenny …)

Sorry, I should know better than to talk about things I don't have
direct experience with

Kind regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 03:32 AM.

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