On 12-07-11 at 10:04am, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
> >>>>> 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?
The single feature that makes anyone want to install the package:
On 12-07-10 at 06:10pm, 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 - those that
> don't should simply uninstall the meta-package.
Some argue that meta-packages can have a different purpose, and some
argue that recommending also to some (lesser) extend ensures
installation of packages. None of that, however, changes the fact that
_this_ meta-package _now_ has the feature of strictly ensuring a certain
set of packages. For those wanting that. And not for those feeling it
is in their way, but those can simply avoid that package: A meta-package
has no functionalirty beyond pulling in packages, so there is no loss to
the resulting system other than lack of its sole feature.
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
07-11-2012, 07:45 AM
Andrei POPESCU
Recommends for metapackages
On Mi, 11 iul 12, 09:10:12, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> A meta-package has no functionalirty beyond pulling in packages, so
> there is no loss to the resulting system other than lack of its sole
> feature.
IMVHO a feature almost as important is to remove a set of packages.
Kind regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
07-11-2012, 08:55 AM
Jonas Smedegaard
Recommends for metapackages
On 12-07-11 at 10:45am, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Mi, 11 iul 12, 09:10:12, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > A meta-package has no functionalirty beyond pulling in packages, so
> > there is no loss to the resulting system other than lack of its sole
> > feature.
>
> IMVHO a feature almost as important is to remove a set of packages.
The feature of _removing_ a set of packages: "aptitude remove ..."
The feature of _ensuring_ a set of packages is not installed: Make a
meta-package that conflicts with the packages.
The feature of _allowing a subset of packages to be removed that was
_ensured_ to be installed: Impossible without defeating the feature of
_ensuring_ those same package are installed.
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
07-11-2012, 09:12 AM
Andrei POPESCU
Recommends for metapackages
On Mi, 11 iul 12, 10:55:16, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
> The feature of _allowing a subset of packages to be removed that was
> _ensured_ to be installed: Impossible without defeating the feature of
> _ensuring_ those same package are installed.
Agreed. However, unless I missed something I haven't seen any arguments
for why gnome-core really needs to _ensure_ that network-manager-gnome
is installed, other than "upgrade issues" without any other details.
Kind regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
07-11-2012, 09:14 AM
Josselin Mouette
Recommends for metapackages
Le mardi 10 juillet 2012 20:01 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard a crit :
> I disagree: Looking at the many other dependencies of gnome-core, it
> clearly isn't meant as "smallest possible GNOME setup" but more
> "essential parts of what the upstream GNOME project has to offer" - as
> its package description also clearly reflects.
>
> When I want "smallest possible GNOME setup" i install gnome-session.
Yes, maybe we should advertise it more, but gnome-session should be
self-contained, and enough for a bare GNOME desktop without any
applications.
--
.'`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'
`-
--
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/1341998092.10559.132.camel@pi0307572
07-11-2012, 09:38 AM
Andrei POPESCU
Recommends for metapackages
On Mi, 11 iul 12, 11:14:52, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
> Yes, maybe we should advertise it more, but gnome-session should be
> self-contained, and enough for a bare GNOME desktop without any
> applications.
Yes please
Some kind of harmonization of (meta-)package names with KDE would also
be very nice. As far as I can tell, currently the equivalence would be:
(probably too late for wheezy, but maybe this could be done for
wheezy+1)
Thanks,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
07-11-2012, 09:39 AM
Thibaut Paumard
Recommends for metapackages
Le 11/07/12 11:14, Josselin Mouette a crit :
> Le mardi 10 juillet 2012 20:01 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard a crit :
>> I disagree: Looking at the many other dependencies of gnome-core, it
>> clearly isn't meant as "smallest possible GNOME setup" but more
>> "essential parts of what the upstream GNOME project has to offer" - as
>> its package description also clearly reflects.
>>
>> When I want "smallest possible GNOME setup" i install gnome-session.
>
> Yes, maybe we should advertise it more, but gnome-session should be
> self-contained, and enough for a bare GNOME desktop without any
> applications.
>
Indeed, I think it would be good if the three meta-packages gnome,
gnome-core and gnome-session would advertise each other in their long
description.
Regards, Thibaut.
07-11-2012, 09:46 AM
Jonas Smedegaard
Recommends for metapackages
On 12-07-11 at 12:12pm, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Mi, 11 iul 12, 10:55:16, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> >
> > The feature of _allowing a subset of packages to be removed that was
> > _ensured_ to be installed: Impossible without defeating the feature
> > of _ensuring_ those same package are installed.
>
> Agreed. However, unless I missed something I haven't seen any
> arguments for why gnome-core really needs to _ensure_ that
> network-manager-gnome is installed, other than "upgrade issues"
> without any other details.
Package description isn't enough argument?
> This meta-package depends on a basic set of programs, including a file
> manager, an image viewer, a web browser, a video player and other
> tools.
>
> It contains the official “core” modules of the GNOME desktop.
I still (as previously mentioned) believe that you really should focus
on gnome-session instead, if you feel gnome-core is too invasive when it
insist on installing certain image viewer, web browser, video player and
"other tools" (which includes a certain network manager).
Maybe some sort of renaming would also be nice to make the
‘hierarchy’ more obvious? Along the lines of
??? kde-full *-full
gnome kde-standard *-most
gnome-core kde-plasma-desktop *-mini or *-small
gnome-session ??? *-micro or *-minimal
Everybody can see that micro < mini and full > *, but if you asked two
people whether ‘core’ or ‘session’ were ‘larger’, you’d probably get
three answers.
The wording above is arguably improvable, though.
Best regards & thank you very much,
Claudius
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120711115530.236456f5@ares.home.chubig.net">http ://lists.debian.org/20120711115530.236456f5@ares.home.chubig.net
07-11-2012, 10:17 AM
Sune Vuorela
Recommends for metapackages
On 2012-07-11, Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> --YZa61AII3s1sGKYx
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> On Mi, 11 iul 12, 11:14:52, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>>=20
>> Yes, maybe we should advertise it more, but gnome-session should be
>> self-contained, and enough for a bare GNOME desktop without any
>> applications.
>
> Yes please
>
> Some kind of harmonization of (meta-)package names with KDE would also=20
> be very nice. As far as I can tell, currently the equivalence would be:
>
> ??? kde-full
> gnome kde-standard
> gnome-core kde-plasma-desktop/kde-plasma-netbook
> gnome-session ???
I'd rather put kde-plasma-desktop/kde-plasma-netbook on the
gnome-session level. and probably kde-full at the gnome level.
kde-standard is not a collection by upstream, but a collection by the
debian people, so it doesn't fully fit the gnome-core.
/Sune
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: slrnjvqkm8.v2o.nospam@sshway.ssh.pusling.com">http ://lists.debian.org/slrnjvqkm8.v2o.nospam@sshway.ssh.pusling.com
Recommends for metapackages
