On Mon Apr 13 10:41, Robert Grimm wrote: > On Sun, 12 April 2009, you wrote: > > Please do not accept any of the patches. Most users want things to just > > work. Anyone who wants to keep their systems hal-free is capable of > > configuring xorg accordingly and should be able to make a filler package > > using equivs to fulfill the dependency with no need to increase the > > complexity for the majority. > > In my opinion, HAL is unneeded complexity. > > Furthermore, the referenced "most users" are perfectly capable to > install recommends. This is the default behavior in Debian. > If they like to install every piece of software, that makes their life > "easier", why wouldn't they install recommends?
Concur. We _have_ a perfectly good system for saying "please install this unless you know what you are doing"; it's 'recommends'. It doesn't force people to hack around the issue (and equivs _is_ hacking around the issue), but it does get installed by default unless people know what they are doing. Not only that, but you also have a metapackage, which is what people generally install by default. Add a hard depends to that by all means, but you don't need to _require_ it. I'm not even likely to want to install it without hal myself, but I see no reason whatsoever not to allow people a hal-less X if they want. Matt -- Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
