On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 01:14:54 -0700 Ryan Niebur <ryanrya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi! > > On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 09:56:06AM +0200, Harald Braumann wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 21:09:12 -0700 > > Ryan Niebur <ryanrya...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > tag 493090 wontfix > > > quit > > > > > > I think that this request is unreasonable. > > Why is it unreasonable to not want useless dependencies? > > > > because they're small enough and they don't hurt anything? So the rationale about including a dependency is its size? I was under the impression that it is also desirable for the package maintainer to have minimal dependencies. > > > > I don't see what the > > > problem here is. gconf doesn't do anything evil, > > I'm not going to comment on the evilness of gconf ;) > > > > ummm...what problems does it cause you? > or is the reason just that you are anti-GNOME? if that's the reason, > then yes, your request is unreasonable. I honestly have no idea why > you don't want the gconf libraries installed. Whether I'm anti- or pro-GNOME has got nothing to do whatsoever with the issue at hand. > > > > and it's not really > > > that big. just having it installed shouldn't hurt. also, there are > > > many other packages which depend on gconf. > > For instance my system is at the moment completely G-free. Now with > > the dependency of wx on gconf, I can't update certain packages if I > > want to keep it this way (which I want). > > > > why? are you just assuming it's bad because it starts with a g? I'm > confused what the problem is.. Yes, I do, for the simple reason that I don't use GNOME, and so I don't see any advantages in having to install GNOME-specific packages. > > > > why don't you want wx to > > > depend on it? > > > > I can understand, that from your, i.e. the package maintainer's, > > point of view this request seems unreasonable. IMO the bug lies > > upstream. Why would any non-GNOME software want to use gconf? > > Upstream seems to > > it's not non-GNOME software. this is the gtk version of > wxwidgets. gtk, gstreamer, gconf, etc are all GNOME projects. And yet gtk does not depend on gconf. And for good reason: it's a base libraries meant to be used also without a GNOME desktop. Just as one would expect from wxwidgets. I haven't checked gstreamer, but if it depends on gconf that would be a bug as well, because it's used everywhere, also outside GNOME. > > > acknowledge that this is a bug, when they say "This probably could > > be corrected"[1]. Unfortunately, at the same time they say "[...] > > but I don't think we will do that". > > > > So the real solution would be to get upstream to "correct" this. > > But if they are unwilling to do this, the second best thing is to > > factor this out in the Debian package, so at least Debian users are > > not affected by this bug. > > > > is it possible to build with wxMediaCtrl disabled? > anyway, I'm assuming that some package uses wxMediaCtrl. > and I really don't want to go through the trouble to find out. Having minimum dependencies is an advantage. They do need space and bandwidth. They can break things even if they are not used. E.g. I use unstable and testing and often packages can not migrate because some of their dependencies are not yet available. The less dependencies the less likely this is. They might have other side effects. But I don't want to familiarise myself with software, I don't even intend to use. Maybe you're right that libgconf on its own is not such a big problem, but it adds up. As it wouldn't make much sense to say "please, all DDs, try to minimise your dependencies", this sort of pleading has to be done on a per package basis, where it is maybe more difficult to convincingly argue that a dependency is bad in on specific instance. Cheers, harry > Cheers, > Ryan >
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
