Jean-Christophe Dubacq jcduba...@free.fr writes:
On 11/07/2012 11:12, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Mi, 11 iul 12, 10:55:16, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
The feature of _allowing a subset of packages to be removed that was
_ensured_ to be installed: Impossible without defeating the feature of
Thanks to the advice of a good man, I'll try to resume my point of view to
avoid repeating once and again.
First, I find ground on our Policy:
Recommends
This declares a strong, but not absolute, dependency.
The Recommends field should list packages that would be found together
]] Russ Allbery
I would usually just install gnome-core once on a new system, unmarkauto
the leaf packages, and then purge gnome-core and network-manager.
Unfortunately, the drawback of that is that if gnome-core later adds new
packages, I don't pick them up by default.
Due to those
Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org writes:
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
Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no writes:
]] Gergely Nagy
Instead of fighting for Recommends, which would break your system in
various interesting ways later on[1], there's a third solution: noone
stops anyone from uploading a gnome-minimal package, which depends on
gnome-session and a few
Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com writes:
On Jo, 12 iul 12, 15:46:05, Gergely Nagy wrote:
X) Downgrade stuff to recommends
I do not consider this a solution, for reasons explained elsewhere,
where my main concern is that it breaks the assumption
Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com writes:
On Jo, 12 iul 12, 12:10:29, Gergely Nagy wrote:
Erm, how have I broken my system? I did not. (Turning Install-Recommends
off is definitely not breaking my system, FYI.)
It means you are running with a non-default configuration and you should
Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com writes:
On Jo, 12 iul 12, 17:44:52, Gergely Nagy wrote:
Then some time later during upgrade it'll upgrade all packages
but will not install N-M; at the same time it'll install
new package that was added to Recommends in that new version.
As far
Gergely Nagy alger...@madhouse-project.org writes:
Please don't forget that a Recommends will pull in packages in all but
unusual installations :)
But also keep in mind, that once a package is installed, adding new
recommends will not pull those new things in on an upgrade.
I've been
Jeremy Bicha jbi...@ubuntu.com writes:
I don't claim to be a networking expert, but I believe half the
conversation here is based on wrong or outdated information.
My (personal) complaint about NM is that it doesn't correct correctly
work with NFS mounts, I believe because it doesn't run at the
Miles Bader mi...@gnu.org writes:
issues with NM: it doesn't seem to be tested with much in the way of
non-standard setups
My personal feeling is that this happens because people who use
non-standard setups usually start by purging NM instead of trying to
spend weeks reading the source code to
Gergely Nagy alger...@balabit.hu writes:
if upstream considers a package a core part of a platform,
recommends *is* wrong.
Er, no.
Upstreams are not infallible, and are often quite fallible...
Upstream's view is a good _default_, but such judgements should be
made based on the reality on the
Le vendredi 13 juillet 2012 à 07:27 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen a écrit :
]] Gergely Nagy
Instead of fighting for Recommends, which would break your system in
various interesting ways later on[1], there's a third solution: noone
stops anyone from uploading a gnome-minimal package, which
Miles Bader mi...@gnu.org writes:
Gergely Nagy alger...@balabit.hu writes:
if upstream considers a package a core part of a platform,
recommends *is* wrong.
Er, no.
Upstreams are not infallible, and are often quite fallible...
Upstream's view is a good _default_, but such judgements
[...]
The amount of extra work necessary is minimal though.
Not so minimal if you want your gnome set to be up to date, including new
applications being installed.
It is very minimal. 5 minutes of work. Been there, done that, posted the
bulk of the solution, and a general outline of
On Viernes, 13 de julio de 2012 07:33:09 Gergely Nagy wrote:
[...]
I *hate* doing things manually, that's why I'm using a bloody high-level
package manager. If it forces me to double-guess it, check a lot of
things during upgrades, I might aswell go back to downloading packages
by hand and
On Viernes, 13 de julio de 2012 08:05:10 Gergely Nagy wrote:
[...]
On one hand, you have, in the depends case:
# apt-get remove gstreamer-plugins-good
Which will try to remove the whole world, including the meta, and that
will ring alarm bells.
Or in the recommends case:
# apt-get
On Viernes, 13 de julio de 2012 08:09:58 Gergely Nagy wrote:
Gergely Nagy alger...@madhouse-project.org writes:
Please don't forget that a Recommends will pull in packages in all but
unusual installations :)
But also keep in mind, that once a package is installed, adding new
recommends
On Viernes, 13 de julio de 2012 08:38:47 Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote:
Miles Bader mi...@gnu.org writes:
issues with NM: it doesn't seem to be tested with much in the way of
non-standard setups
My personal feeling is that this happens because people who use
non-standard setups usually
On Viernes, 13 de julio de 2012 09:38:45 Gergely Nagy wrote:
Miles Bader mi...@gnu.org writes:
Gergely Nagy alger...@balabit.hu writes:
if upstream considers a package a core part of a platform,
recommends *is* wrong.
Er, no.
Upstreams are not infallible, and are often quite
Noel David Torres Taño env...@rolamasao.org writes:
I *hate* doing things manually, that's why I'm using a bloody high-level
metapackage. If it forces me to deinstall N-M by hand using
--force-depends (because it breaks my Pidgin) every time I use aptitude
to install something, either related
Adam Borowski writes (Re: Recommends for metapackages):
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 09:32:19PM -0600, Philipp Kern wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 07:21:00PM +0100, Noel David Torres Taño wrote:
Installing N-M breaks unrelated software.
No. At most it breaks *related* software.
Exactly
[sorry for the lengthy quoting below]
On 12/07/12 10:10, Gergely Nagy wrote:
Noel David Torres Taño env...@rolamasao.org writes:
Not so minimal if you want your gnome set to be up to date, including new
applications being installed.
It is very minimal. 5 minutes of work. Been there, done
Le mercredi 11 juillet 2012 à 19:17 +0100, Noel David Torres Taño a
écrit :
So a meta-package is just a way of installing things together, and a
lot more. But from those things, only dependencies should be Depends,
and software that improves the collection should be Recommends. In
this
On 2012-07-12 09:23, Josselin Mouette wrote:
By the same view, totem improves GNOME, but it is not needed at all.
Correct. But it does not conflict with kaffeine, mplayer, vlc, xine, ...
Gcalctool improves GNOME, but it is not needed at all.
Correct. But it does not conflict with bc, kcalc,
On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 23:57 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Noel David Torres Taño env...@rolamasao.org (11/07/2012):
Your view is irrelevant here: GNOME project considers it essential.
Gnome view is the one irrelevant. This is Debian GNU/Linux, not Gnome
GNU/Linux. We need to care for
Noel David Torres Taño env...@rolamasao.org writes:
Yet, we try to not diverge much from upstream, and maintain a good
relationship with them. If they consider it core, so can we. Those who
want to hand-pick parts of a meta package, can do so, we do not forbid.
If we want to be user
On 12-07-12 at 10:28am, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
I'm maintaining a package which upstream delivers as all in one
(600MB) and refuses to support splitting. I've split it into 22
packages because I know and got requests from users who want to have
it in machines with small disks and/or low
Eugene V. Lyubimkin jac...@debian.org writes:
On 2012-07-11 14:33, Gergely Nagy wrote:
Eugene V. Lyubimkin jac...@debian.org writes:
Moreover, despite me understanding the picture, I still
has no clean, safe and documented way to do what I'd want in case the
package maintainer chosed
Steve McIntyre st...@einval.com writes:
Gergely wrote:
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh h...@debian.org writes:
IMO, metapackages should depend on the absolutely required stuff (and many
times that will be the empty set), recommend the rest, and maybe even
suggest fringe packages. This achieves
On Thu, 2012-07-12 at 11:09 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On 12-07-12 at 10:28am, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
I'm maintaining a package which upstream delivers as all in one
(600MB) and refuses to support splitting. I've split it into 22
packages because I know and got requests from users
Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com writes:
On Mi, 11 iul 12, 14:41:50, Gergely Nagy wrote:
Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com writes:
Depending on how you do the package selection on your next installation
you might end up with rsyslog, but without logrotate[1].
I don't see
Abou Al Montacir abou.almonta...@sfr.fr writes:
As with any package available in Debian: Just don't install it if you do
not like what the package does!
It really is that simple!
I think that we really do not have the same understanding of
metapackage. You clearly want them strict and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Le 12/07/12 11:09, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
As with any package available in Debian: Just don't install it if
you do not like what the package does!
Hi,
There is a major difference between the gnome-core metapackages and
any other (meta) package
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:06:40AM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
Right. So you're arguing that all the packages should be listed as
Depends: to make *your* life easier, when you're doing something
different from what's recommended. Thanks for showing how much weight
we should attach to your
On 12-07-12 at 11:26am, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
On Thu, 2012-07-12 at 11:09 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On 12-07-12 at 10:28am, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
I'm maintaining a package which upstream delivers as all in one
(600MB) and refuses to support splitting. I've split it into 22
Hi,
Le 12/07/12 11:06, Gergely Nagy a écrit :
Lets consider another case! Suppose I have Install-Recommends turned on,
and install a theoretical meta package, that has half of its stuff in
recommends, because they're not strictly necessary, but merely enhance
the system. Lets suppose one of
Andreas Tille andr...@an3as.eu writes:
It's a meta-package, that pulls in a platform. If I install it, I want
the full platform, always. That's about it. If I install mono-complete,
I want the whole bloody thing, always.
I think the attempt to ensure something always is not reasonable
Thibaut Paumard mlotpot.n...@free.fr writes:
Le 12/07/12 11:06, Gergely Nagy a écrit :
Lets consider another case! Suppose I have Install-Recommends turned on,
and install a theoretical meta package, that has half of its stuff in
recommends, because they're not strictly necessary, but merely
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 11:25:05PM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
for the 1-2% of people who has weird needs.
It's this proportion which I think is not consistent, nor agreed, amongst all
developers.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe.
Dnia 2012-07-12, czw o godzinie 10:39 +0200, Gergely Nagy pisze:
Noel David Torres Taño env...@rolamasao.org writes:
Yet, we try to not diverge much from upstream, and maintain a good
relationship with them. If they consider it core, so can we. Those who
want to hand-pick parts of a meta
Tomasz Rybak tomasz.ry...@post.pl writes:
At first I thought it was a joke. But no, you really suggest that
everyone who wants to have up-to-date desktop environment
but without few packages (e.g. N-M or GDM) needs to create own package,
own local repository, and looks into it every time
Dnia 2012-07-12, czw o godzinie 15:46 +0200, Gergely Nagy pisze:
Tomasz Rybak tomasz.ry...@post.pl writes:
At first I thought it was a joke. But no, you really suggest that
everyone who wants to have up-to-date desktop environment
but without few packages (e.g. N-M or GDM) needs to create
FTR: Please don't CC me on list mail. I'm tired of setting M-F-T.
Tomasz Rybak tomasz.ry...@post.pl writes:
Dnia 2012-07-12, czw o godzinie 15:46 +0200, Gergely Nagy pisze:
Tomasz Rybak tomasz.ry...@post.pl writes:
At first I thought it was a joke. But no, you really suggest that
On Thu, 2012-07-12 at 05:42 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 09:32:19PM -0600, Philipp Kern wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 07:21:00PM +0100, Noel David Torres Taño wrote:
Installing N-M breaks unrelated software.
No. At most it breaks *related* software.
Exactly,
On Jo, 12 iul 12, 15:46:05, Gergely Nagy wrote:
X) Downgrade stuff to recommends
I do not consider this a solution, for reasons explained elsewhere,
where my main concern is that it breaks the assumption that installing a
platform (in this case, gnome)
On Jo, 12 iul 12, 17:44:52, Gergely Nagy wrote:
Then some time later during upgrade it'll upgrade all packages
but will not install N-M; at the same time it'll install
new package that was added to Recommends in that new version.
As far as I remember, it will not install new recommends.
On Jo, 12 iul 12, 12:10:29, Gergely Nagy wrote:
Erm, how have I broken my system? I did not. (Turning Install-Recommends
off is definitely not breaking my system, FYI.)
It means you are running with a non-default configuration and you should
be aware of the side-effects.
The attitude that
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
]] Gergely Nagy
Instead of fighting for Recommends, which would break your system in
various interesting ways later on[1], there's a third solution: noone
stops anyone from uploading a gnome-minimal package, which depends on
gnome-session and a few selected other parts, without n-m.
I would
On 12-07-11 at 10:04am, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk writes:
[…]
It is a feature (which each user is free to avoid by not using it!)
for Debian to include a meta-package that pulls in that vil
n-m, not a bug.
… And what exactly this “feature”
On Mi, 11 iul 12, 09:10:12, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
A meta-package has no functionalirty beyond pulling in packages, so
there is no loss to the resulting system other than lack of its sole
feature.
IMVHO a feature almost as important is to remove a set of packages.
Kind regards,
Andrei
--
On 12-07-11 at 10:45am, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Mi, 11 iul 12, 09:10:12, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
A meta-package has no functionalirty beyond pulling in packages, so
there is no loss to the resulting system other than lack of its sole
feature.
IMVHO a feature almost as important is to
On Mi, 11 iul 12, 10:55:16, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
The feature of _allowing a subset of packages to be removed that was
_ensured_ to be installed: Impossible without defeating the feature of
_ensuring_ those same package are installed.
Agreed. However, unless I missed something I haven't
Le mardi 10 juillet 2012 à 20:01 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
I disagree: Looking at the many other dependencies of gnome-core, it
clearly isn't meant as smallest possible GNOME setup but more
essential parts of what the upstream GNOME project has to offer - as
its package description
On Mi, 11 iul 12, 11:14:52, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Yes, maybe we should advertise it more, but gnome-session should be
self-contained, and enough for a bare GNOME desktop without any
applications.
Yes please :)
Some kind of harmonization of (meta-)package names with KDE would also
be very
Le 11/07/12 11:14, Josselin Mouette a écrit :
Le mardi 10 juillet 2012 à 20:01 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
I disagree: Looking at the many other dependencies of gnome-core, it
clearly isn't meant as smallest possible GNOME setup but more
essential parts of what the upstream GNOME
On 12-07-11 at 12:12pm, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Mi, 11 iul 12, 10:55:16, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
The feature of _allowing a subset of packages to be removed that was
_ensured_ to be installed: Impossible without defeating the feature
of _ensuring_ those same package are installed.
Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com wrote:
??? kde-full
gnome kde-standard
gnome-core kde-plasma-desktop/kde-plasma-netbook
gnome-session ???
Maybe some sort of renaming would also be nice to make the
‘hierarchy’ more obvious? Along the lines of
???
On 2012-07-11, Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com wrote:
--YZa61AII3s1sGKYx
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mi, 11 iul 12, 11:14:52, Josselin Mouette wrote:
=20
Yes, maybe we should advertise it
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 04:39:10PM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
On 2012-07-10, Gergely Nagy alger...@balabit.hu wrote:
No. Only if installing recommends is turned on, which cannot be
guaranteed.
There is many ways to break your system. turning off installation of
recommends is one of them.
On Mi, 11 iul 12, 10:17:44, Sune Vuorela wrote:
I'd rather put kde-plasma-desktop/kde-plasma-netbook on the
gnome-session level. and probably kde-full at the gnome level.
kde-standard is not a collection by upstream, but a collection by the
debian people, so it doesn't fully fit the
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Ma, 10 iul 12, 22:07:10, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
... And I disagree with that. No solution can override policy's all
Depends must be satisfied. If one choose to support the exclude from
metapackage one either has to change the policy, remove
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012, Jon Dowland wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 04:39:10PM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
On 2012-07-10, Gergely Nagy alger...@balabit.hu wrote:
No. Only if installing recommends is turned on, which cannot be
guaranteed.
There is many ways to break your system. turning
On 11/07/2012 11:12, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Mi, 11 iul 12, 10:55:16, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
The feature of _allowing a subset of packages to be removed that was
_ensured_ to be installed: Impossible without defeating the feature of
_ensuring_ those same package are installed.
Agreed.
On 2012-07-10 23:46, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
- The gnome-core metapackage is very useful to some people. It helps
people install a standard GNOME installation, keep it installed,
and remove it later if they wish, using a single package.
Most metapackages provide such a useful collection
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 08:51:32AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
Broken as in partially working because there are expected features missing
is the _very_ definition of not installing a recommended package.
Now, broken as in doesn't work at all for any use case would be a bug,
Eugene V. Lyubimkin jac...@debian.org writes:
Moreover, despite me understanding the picture, I still
has no clean, safe and documented way to do what I'd want in case the
package maintainer chosed Depends.
You have: install the pieces you want by hand. That's at least clean and
safe. I do
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh h...@debian.org writes:
IMO, metapackages should depend on the absolutely required stuff (and many
times that will be the empty set), recommend the rest, and maybe even
suggest fringe packages. This achieves maximum usability for more
usecases, and malfunctions
Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com writes:
On Ma, 10 iul 12, 18:43:03, Gergely Nagy wrote:
During the past ~14 years I've been using Debian with that setting
turned off, nothing ever broke on my systems because of this setting. If
it does, then I'll consider that a bug and report it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
Le 11/07/12 14:36, Gergely Nagy a écrit :
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh h...@debian.org writes:
IMO, metapackages should depend on the absolutely required
stuff (and many times that will be the empty set), recommend
the rest, and maybe even
Noel David Torres Taño env...@rolamasao.org writes:
Well, in case of GNOME, upstream considers n-m to be part of the core
system, to the best of my knowledge. If upstream does so, so should we.
No. That's why we have our own distribution instead of just a collection of
unpatched packages
Thibaut Paumard paum...@users.sourceforge.net writes:
That also achives maximum annoyance, because if I want the full
platform, I'll have to go recommends/suggest hunting. (No, I'm
*not* going to turn on install-recommends.)
You don't want to turn on install-recommends, but you are happy
On 2012-07-11 14:33, Gergely Nagy wrote:
Eugene V. Lyubimkin jac...@debian.org writes:
Moreover, despite me understanding the picture, I still
has no clean, safe and documented way to do what I'd want in case the
package maintainer chosed Depends.
You have: install the pieces you want
By the way, I find it enlightening to realize that gnome only
recommends network-manager-gnome whereas gnome-core depends on it.
That was at gnome 2.30 times...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 20:01 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On 12-07-10 at 06:34pm, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 18:10 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
The very purpose of a meta-package is to _ensure_ that a certain set
of packages is installed, not just recommend them:
Some argue that meta-packages can have a different purpose, and some
argue that recommending also to some (lesser) extend ensures
installation of packages. None of that, however, changes the fact that
_this_ meta-package _now_ has the feature of strictly ensuring a certain
set of packages.
I still (as previously mentioned) believe that you really should focus
on gnome-session instead, if you feel gnome-core is too invasive when it
insist on installing certain image viewer, web browser, video player and
other tools (which includes a certain network manager).
Installing an image
Yet, we try to not diverge much from upstream, and maintain a good
relationship with them. If they consider it core, so can we. Those who
want to hand-pick parts of a meta package, can do so, we do not forbid.
If we want to be user friendly, it is not a matter of we do not forbid, it
is a
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012, Gergely Nagy wrote:
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh h...@debian.org writes:
IMO, metapackages should depend on the absolutely required stuff (and many
times that will be the empty set), recommend the rest, and maybe even
suggest fringe packages. This achieves maximum
On 12-07-11 at 07:54pm, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 20:01 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
essential parts of what the upstream GNOME project has to offer - as
its package description also clearly reflects.
And NM is not essential in my point of view
Your view is irrelevant
On 12-07-11 at 07:21pm, Noel David Torres Taño wrote:
I still (as previously mentioned) believe that you really should
focus on gnome-session instead, if you feel gnome-core is too
invasive when it insist on installing certain image viewer, web
browser, video player and other tools
Gergely wrote:
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh h...@debian.org writes:
IMO, metapackages should depend on the absolutely required stuff (and many
times that will be the empty set), recommend the rest, and maybe even
suggest fringe packages. This achieves maximum usability for more
usecases, and
On Mi, 11 iul 12, 15:22:32, Gergely Nagy wrote:
Like I said earlier: script it. I posted a script that can remove any
number of packages from another's depends line, and echo a control
file. Updating that to create a local meta-package is a piece of
cake. Hooking it into apt is also
On Mi, 11 iul 12, 14:41:50, Gergely Nagy wrote:
Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com writes:
Depending on how you do the package selection on your next installation
you might end up with rsyslog, but without logrotate[1].
I don't see how that would break anything. logrotate is not
Installing N-M breaks unrelated software.
That is a bug in network-manager, not in gnome-core.
That bug is not fixed nor worked around by making it easier to avoid the
broken package.
No. It is not a broken package. It does what it is designed to do. The bug is
having it as a Depends
[...]
essential parts of what the upstream GNOME project has to offer - as
its package description also clearly reflects.
And NM is not essential in my point of view
Your view is irrelevant here: GNOME project considers it essential.
Gnome view is the one irrelevant. This is Debian
Noel David Torres Taño env...@rolamasao.org (11/07/2012):
Your view is irrelevant here: GNOME project considers it essential.
Gnome view is the one irrelevant. This is Debian GNU/Linux, not Gnome
GNU/Linux. We need to care for our users (both proficient and novice [1]),
not for Gnome
On July 10, 2012 10:39:10 AM Sune Vuorela wrote:
On 2012-07-10, Gergely Nagy alger...@balabit.hu wrote:
No. Only if installing recommends is turned on, which cannot be
guaranteed.
There is many ways to break your system. turning off installation of
recommends is one of them.
So, if
On 2012-07-11, Bruce Sass bms...@shaw.ca wrote:
On July 10, 2012 10:39:10 AM Sune Vuorela wrote:
On 2012-07-10, Gergely Nagy alger...@balabit.hu wrote:
No. Only if installing recommends is turned on, which cannot be
guaranteed.
There is many ways to break your system. turning off
On 11 July 2012 14:21, Noel David Torres Taño env...@rolamasao.org wrote:
Installing N-M breaks unrelated software.
Hi!
I don't claim to be a networking expert, but I believe half the
conversation here is based on wrong or outdated information. I
encourage those who think NetworkManager (NM)
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 08:04:18PM -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
On 11 July 2012 14:21, Noel David Torres Taño env...@rolamasao.org wrote:
Installing N-M breaks unrelated software.
I don't claim to be a networking expert, but I believe half the
conversation here is based on wrong or outdated
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 07:21:00PM +0100, Noel David Torres Taño wrote:
Installing N-M breaks unrelated software.
No. At most it breaks *related* software.
Kind regards
Philipp Kern
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 09:32:19PM -0600, Philipp Kern wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 07:21:00PM +0100, Noel David Torres Taño wrote:
Installing N-M breaks unrelated software.
No. At most it breaks *related* software.
Exactly, that's why it's the gnome-core package that's RC-buggy, not
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
On 2012-07-10 16:18, Gergely Nagy wrote:
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.
Surely Recommends does pull stuff in. It's clearly reflected in Debian
policy and supported by most if
On 12-07-10 at 06:14pm, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
On 2012-07-10 16:18, Gergely Nagy wrote:
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.
Surely Recommends does pull stuff in. It's
On 2012-07-10 18:10, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
The very purpose of a meta-package is to _ensure_ that a certain set of
packages is installed, not just recommend them: All (not only most)
users of that package need all its dependencies satisfied
My definition of meta-package is less strict than
On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 18:10 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On 12-07-10 at 06:14pm, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
On 2012-07-10 16:18, Gergely Nagy wrote:
But the purpose of the meta-package is to pull stuff in. Depends
does that, Recommends does not, therefore Recommends is not
Eugene V. Lyubimkin jac...@debian.org writes:
On 2012-07-10 16:18, Gergely Nagy wrote:
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.
Surely Recommends does pull stuff in.
No. Only if
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
