More to the point, as of two dayas ago, the deps were screwed up enough that you could not do an upgrade without doing a no-deps on this (kde et al) and MANY other packages including samba. I agree this is unacceptable. Instead of arguing at length, at least get this much working correctly please.
Bob Finch On Saturday 09 August 2003 06:53 am, Guillaume Rousse wrote: > Ainsi parlait Jason Straight : > > On Friday 08 August 2003 20:25, Duncan wrote: > > > On Fri 08 Aug 2003 16:14, Greg Meyer posted as excerpted below: > > > > On Friday 08 August 2003 02:21 am, Laurent Montel wrote: > > > > > > kdebase requires kdm, meaning you can't install kde without > > > > > > kdm/mdkdm > > > > > > > > > > kdebase will require all the time kdm. > > > > > > > > Doesn't it make more sense for kdebase to require dm and have all of > > > > the kdm/gdm/xdm/mdkkdm provide dm? Especially if mdkkdm and > > > > kdebase-kdm are separate packages. > > > > > > Why require a dm at all? There are those of us who prefer booting init > > > 3, then starting kde from a console, avoiding the dm. > > > > For those of us who know that we also know we could force the removal. > > It's probably not a good idea for a newbie to not get a dm - and not > > requiring one would allow them to forget - or deselect one not knowing > > how important it would be to a new windows or mac convert. > > RPM has only one level of dependencies, meant for mandatory requirements, > as opposed to DPKG who has two levels, mandatory and advised. No one should > have to resort to --nodeps for normal system administration, just to make > things a bit easier for newbies.
