On Sunday 29 August 2004 22:41, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 09:27:10PM +0200, Maarten ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > On Sunday 29 August 2004 00:04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 10:23:36PM +0200, Maarten > > > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > > > wrote: > > > > I remember well that at one time I wanted to install a SuSE system > > > > without X, and just one package triggered 4 other packages and those > > > > then triggered the full X eventually. It really was a pain. Mind > > > > you, that was a few years back, I get the distinct impression things > > > > have changed for the better now. > > > > > > I've not used yast but with rpm at least you can pass a flag to ignore > > > dependencies. > > > > Yes. But that's hardly the point, is it. You can remove the unwanted > > packages using 'rpm -e --nodeps' too, but you shouldn't need to. > > Why not? If someone were installing X and failed to install one of > those packages triggered by the dependencies in your example above then > their installation would be broken.
IF you're installing X then my example doesn't apply. My example applied to a scenario where one definitely _doesn't_ want X (on a server perhaps) and it gets installed despite, due to some obscure dependency. Then you are tasked to remove all of X (and it's a lot) by rpm -e --nodeps. That is a big job... especially since you're not absolutely sure which packages belong to or depend on X and which do not. > If the 'one package' were compiled to use shared libs from X it would be > broken if you do not install those libs. Usage without X may or may not > induce it to actaully break but there is code in there that if executed > expects to find those shared libs. There is the possibility (AFAIK) to name a dependency "Optional". That would be a better choice in the example(s) at hand. SuSE's Yast doesn't have X as dependency since it can work without it, albeit it is looking nicer in X. More packages should follow that. If a package offers a ncurses mode, IMHO it should not depend on X (or kdelibs, or glib, or gnome-lib, etc.(*)) (*) well except if it's real base functionality depends on those. But as I said, things already are (much) better now as they were a couple of years back... > The correct thing would have to be re-compile that package to not depend > on any of the packages not installed. Hum, I don't fully agree but splitting up the package would be a good thing, akin to emacs / xemacs, thereby elegantly solving the problem. Maarten -- Yes of course I'm sure it's the red cable. I guarante[^%!/+)F#0c|'NO CARRIER _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
