Le lundi 09 janvier 2006 à 14:41 +0100, Tollef Fog Heen a écrit : > | Ladies and gentlemen, this is a perfect example of why linking indirect > | dependencies is a very bad thing. Let me explain. > > No, it's not. At least not in the way GTK & friends work.
Why so? > | Of all binaries shipped with GConf, gconf-sanity-check is the only one > | using GTK+. The only application using gconf-sanity-check is > | gnome-session. On first sight, it looks safe to exclude > | gconf-sanity-check for the computation of gconf dependencies, > > Uhm, this is where you go wrong. You can't just exclude binaries > nilly-willy like this. Of course I can. The gconf-sanity-check binary is absolutely not necessary for the rest of the gconf functionality. This is an optional add-on, which isn't even in /usr/bin. It is perfectly safe to put its dependencies in Recommends:. A more elegant solution would be to make a separate package for gconf-sanity-check, but it is only 11K. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette /\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom