On mer., 2014-10-15 at 23:34 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 19:17:10 +0200 Fabian Greffrath > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear XFCE4 and LXDE maintainers, > > > > Am Donnerstag, den 17.07.2014, 15:38 +0200 schrieb Andreas Henriksson: > > > Could you please ask your question about dropping evince-gtk to those > > > that use it? eg. the XFCE or LXDE people. > > > > > > I have no objections against dropping it if noone feel they need it and > > > updates their dependencies accordingly. > > > > I'd like to ask you to elaborate if a separate evince-gtk package is > > still necessary for your purposes, please. I have given a rationale in > > #755071: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I wonder if a separate evince-gtk package is still necessary at all. > > > If I am > > > not mistaken, evince has only two more package dependencies than > > > evince-gtk: > > > libnautilus-extension1a and libsecret-1-0. > > > > > > Since evince-gtk identifies itself as "evince without GNOME keyring > > > support", I > > > guess it is the second dependency that is meant to get removed by the > > > separate > > > build. However, libsecret-1-0 has only two additional dependencies > > > that aren't > > > pulled in by evince[-gtk] anyway: libgcrypt11 and libsecret-common, of > > > which > > > the latter is an Arch: all package without further dependencies. The > > > libnautilus-extension1a package in turn pulls in libselinux1. > > > > > > So, is this it? Do we really need a separate binary package of evince > > > to avoid > > > the installation of four leaf packages? > > Could we have some input from the XFCE/LXDE maintainers on this matter?
Well, we already did that dance once. evince-gtk was dropped, but reintroduced later. Right now the dependencies seem somehow sane (even though I'm unsure we really want a nautilus extension libraries in Xfce/LXDE desktop, I guess it doesn't do that much harm), but I'm afraid in the future there will be again some GNOME specific libs which would justify an evince-gtk again. So if it's really a maintenance burden for you, then go ahead and remove it, I guess we (Xfce) we'll be fine, but I have the feeling it will change again in the future. Regards, -- Yves-Alexis
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Pkg-xfce-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-xfce-devel
