On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 06:50:16AM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: > I know what is needed by what, and the unidirectional dependency was how > I originally had it. The bidirectional dependency was added by request, > requested explicitlly by some fairly persistent users. They cited prior > game dependency loops as precedent, and said that making fgfs-base > depend on flightgear is less confusing. In particular, by preventing > fgfs-base from being installable on archs where flightgear has not been > built, situations like "I just spent the night downloading 10MB over a > modem and transferring via floppy disks, where's the game? I thought I > had everything!" are avoided. > > So, is this a valid concern no more?
Well, I think you could improve the situation without requiring a useless dependency: First, this package would be better named flightgear-data so the link to flightgear would be clear. Furthermore the description does not mention the package name flightgear only the name Flight Gear, so it is not quite obvious what package use flightgear. You could improve the situation by changing the description to mention fligtgear and change flightgear to provide fgfs, so that users can do apt-get install fgfs Futhermore you can use debtags to mark fgfs-base as a data package so that package manager will be able to warn the users that don't read descriptions. Enrico Zini also proposes to use Enhances: flighgear, see: <http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/11/msg01129.html> But the dependencies should not try to second guess what the user want. Also be wary of doing technically wrong things to shut up users like Dan Jacobson and don't worry about other game packages creating a precedent: that won't last long :) Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
