On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 20:37, Reuben Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > On 28 March 2011 21:32, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I think we'd be pushing it too far that way. It doesn't feel like a >> justified use-case to add yet-another-command. > > I'd rather have fewer commands on the whole, but this one seems like > it fills out a regular set. > > If "wajig install" handles dependencies (which would be lovely), then > why shouldn't "wajig purge" remove them? I think it comes down to > whether you prefer *only* having commands that try to do as much as > possible for the user, and make them fall back to the underlying > commands for more fine-grained operation (I'm fine with that), or > whether you want to implement a larger number of wajig commands.
The question of how much is too much is one that I often ask myself BTW. For one, I've been doing some trimming of wajig COMMANDS which I thought were kinda overkill, but one or two people complained, after which I put back at least one COMMAND back. Back to the issue, maybe someone already filed a bug, but I'm really surprised that gdebi can't install more than one package at a time. That means the proposed "install-depend" doesn't map nicely with "install" (so it's a sense a hyper-powered install, and in another sense, not). What's worse is that gdebi doesn't even tell you that only one of the listed packages will be installed. As much as you want the dependency installation, I find this limitation an indication of brokenness. That's why I'd rather do this directly with python-apt, in which case there won't be "install-depend", meaning that "install pkg.deb" will install that and it's dependencies (and maybe even give the option even if the pkg isn't satisfiable). What do you think? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
