On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 5:27 AM, Nagy Gabor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> This seems more like an issue with dependency resolution than anything >>> else. Assuming this is all based on issues with optdepends, like so:
Can I take a step back here and say this: we're getting greedy. When we introduced optdepends, we were (I was?) just trying to remove need for install files with metadata only. Moving it into the package made sense, but I never anticipated it flowering into all this complexity that has been brought up in this thread. What happened to tweaking things on your own if necessary? I'm just not convinced we want to go down the road to complexity and extra features here, especially if the trend continues. "Well what if I installed a package as an optdepend for this one, but don't want it to be an optdepend for this other one?" The list of scenarios seems endless and I fear fixing one will open the floodgates for 3 more use cases. -Dan _______________________________________________ pacman-dev mailing list [email protected] http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
