On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 04:18:17PM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote: > "Eugene V. Lyubimkin" <jac...@debian.org> writes: > > > On 2012-07-10 15:32, Josselin Mouette wrote: > >> Le mardi 10 juillet 2012 à 17:38 +0900, Miles Bader a écrit : > >> > What's wrong with Recommends: in that case? It seems to perfectly > >> > match the "makes life easier for <common but not universal use-case > >> > XXX>" scenario you describe. > >> > >> Recommends is wrong for metapackages because it gets upgrades very > >> wrong. This is why it is used very marginally. > > > > Standards should not depend on implementation details. I see zero > > reasons why metapackages are (or should be) specific here. Whatever $it > > that gets upgrades wrong should be fixed instead. > > But the purpose of the meta-package is to pull stuff in. Depends does > that, Recommends does not, therefore Recommends is not appropriate for > the task.
Of course it does. Five years ago, when apt didn't install recommends by default, recommends might not have been appropriate, but these days it is. -- The volume of a pizza of thickness a and radius z can be described by the following formula: pi zz a -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120713040331.gl2...@grep.be
