Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
On 09/05/07 17:55 +0530, Y Giridhar Appaji Nag said ... I filed a lintian wishlist bug (#527363) requesting a I/W tag when non documentation packages recommend documentation packages. With Install-Recommends being the default, many packages pull in a lot of associated documentation. These documentation packages are sometimes large and could be suggested rather than recommended. I noticed different opinions about such bugs on the BTS (See #504042 that went on to be fixed and #526153 that was not). I understand that upstream would sometimes like documentation to be installed alongside the binaries, but popcon numbers of -doc packages are quite lower the numbers corresponding to the packages that recommend them. Would there be any objections to filing minor/wishlist bugs against these packages? I am including a tentative dd-list corresponding to the packages [1] that I found after manually removing some packages [2]. I will modify it based on suggestions. Based on the responses, I will not file bugs on all these packages and also see if my request for lintian check makes more sense if it is refined. Thank you all for the comments. Giridhar -- Y Giridhar Appaji Nag | http://people.debian.org/~appaji/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
I demand that Travis Crump may or may not have written... [snip] Popcon suggests only 8% of users are on dial-up [based on package ppp and 'votes'] Use of ppp does not imply use of dial-up. -- | Darren Salt | linux at youmustbejoking | nr. Ashington, | Toon | Debian GNU/Linux | or ds,demon,co,uk| Northumberland | Army | URL:http://www.youmustbejoking.demon.co.uk/progs.packages.html The surest way to be late is to have plenty of time. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
Travis Crump wrote: Daniel Burrows wrote: On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 02:58:56PM -0700, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org was heard to say: I think that lintian warning is the right way to do it. I don't -- I think there are too many false positives for a lintian warning given the thread. I also think this is fundamentally going in the wrong direction. Wouldn't our users expect to get the documentation with many of these packages by default? Normally you do get some documentation with things, and I've always been surprised by, say, ntp not including any documentation without installing a separate package. I agree with this. I consider installing a program and *not* installing its documentation to be an unusual situation, and if this bug is filed I will treat it as a request to make my packages worse. aptitude-doc is split out to save archive space and as a feature for users who want to save a few megabytes by removing the user manual, not because I want to force users to jump through hoops to get documentation on their system. Daniel If the documentation is something designed to be viewed in a web browser and the user has broadband, it is arguably easier to find it on the web. If the documentation isn't accessible, that should be fixed. (aptidude's help menu has a link to the text-only version of the documentation, great). Even knowing precisely where it is[/usr/share/doc/aptitude is it -doc or just aptitude, oops I already found it online google aptitude doc first result], it is still arguably faster to find it online and once you bookmark it is virtually identical. The documentation published on the web isn't always the same as the version shipped by Stable. Franklin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
Y Giridhar Appaji Nag wrote: Hi debian-devel, From policy 7.2 Binary Dependencies - Depends, Recommends, Suggests, Enhances, Pre-Depends Recommends This declares a strong, but not absolute, dependency. The Recommends field should list packages that would be found together with this one in all but unusual installations. Suggests This is used to declare that one package may be more useful with one or more others. Using this field tells the packaging system and the user that the listed packages are related to this one and can perhaps enhance its usefulness, but that installing this one without them is perfectly reasonable. I filed a lintian wishlist bug (#527363) requesting a I/W tag when non documentation packages recommend documentation packages. With Install-Recommends being the default, many packages pull in a lot of associated documentation. These documentation packages are sometimes large and could be suggested rather than recommended. I noticed different opinions about such bugs on the BTS (See #504042 that went on to be fixed and #526153 that was not). I understand that upstream would sometimes like documentation to be installed alongside the binaries, but popcon numbers of -doc packages are quite lower the numbers corresponding to the packages that recommend them. Would there be any objections to filing minor/wishlist bugs against these packages? I am including a tentative dd-list corresponding to the packages [1] that I found after manually removing some packages [2]. I will modify it based on suggestions. [1] grep-dctrl --pattern=-doc --field=Recommends --and --not \ --pattern=-dev --field=Package --show-field=Package [2] Mostly haskell, tcl/tk, texlive and gtk/gnome documentation packages a few others like emacs-goodies-el, twisted-doc etc. snip I wonder if I should remove the following packages from the list. Debian X Strike Force debia...@lists.debian.org xorg I've now begun taking care of this. xorg currently recommends xorg-docs, which contains several manpages that we consider standard for any X installation. Unfortunately, it also contains several other docs that aren't as necessary. What I've just done is uploaded a new version of xorg-docs to unstable that splits off a new xorg-docs-core package that contains these manpages. The xorg package in our git repository now depends on this -core package, and moves xorg-docs to suggests where it's more appropriate. Once we upload a new version of xorg, it'll still appear on your scan, but at that point we'll be considering it a false positive. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 07:00:25PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 09:47:56PM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote: As a practical matter, downgrading these dependencies will cause aptitude and other package managers to believe that the documentation is unnecessary and suggest removing it. Even if the user marked as non-automatic the involved -doc packages? Anyhow, even if it is the case, I'm tempted to just reply too bad. The admin will notice that and take it as an occasion for doing a review of which doc she really wants and which she wants not. As a user, I like being able to mark documentation packages as being automatically installed, so that when I remove the associated packages the package manager will automatically offer to remove the then unneeded documentation packages at the same time. Otherwise there is a good chance the documentation packages will litter the system forever, or at least until I get around to doing a manual cleanup (which might never happen). I suppose another way around this would be to be able to mark suggested packages as being automatically installed so they could be removed automatically when the suggesting package is removed. Roger -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
On Saturday 09 May 2009 00:58:56 Russ Allbery wrote: Wouldn't our users expect to get the documentation with many of these packages by default? Normally you do get some documentation with things, and I've always been surprised by, say, ntp not including any documentation without installing a separate package. We currently have that ntp suggests ntp-doc. Should that be changed to recommends? Perhaps a better policy or developer reference type guideline can come out of this thread about what kind of package should or should not depend on documentation in what way. It is kind of idiosyncratic that we insist on man pages being provided in a very specific way but are completely lax about other kinds of documentation, even if the latter might be the primary way to learn about a particular package's functionality. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 06:49:38PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org was heard to say: On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 09:47:56PM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote: As a practical matter, downgrading these dependencies will cause aptitude and other package managers to believe that the documentation is unnecessary and suggest removing it. Even if the user marked as non-automatic the involved -doc packages? No, but I doubt more than a handful of users have done this. Also, I see no other way of doing that transition ... Do you have any aptitude-fu suggestion? :) $ aptitude unmarkauto ~n-doc$ Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 02:58:56PM -0700, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org was heard to say: I think that lintian warning is the right way to do it. I don't -- I think there are too many false positives for a lintian warning given the thread. I also think this is fundamentally going in the wrong direction. Wouldn't our users expect to get the documentation with many of these packages by default? Normally you do get some documentation with things, and I've always been surprised by, say, ntp not including any documentation without installing a separate package. I agree with this. I consider installing a program and *not* installing its documentation to be an unusual situation, and if this bug is filed I will treat it as a request to make my packages worse. aptitude-doc is split out to save archive space and as a feature for users who want to save a few megabytes by removing the user manual, not because I want to force users to jump through hoops to get documentation on their system. Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 06:55:43PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org was heard to say: I don't think that the mere fact that we changed the default behavior of apt-get/aptitude should get in the way of that maintainer's choice. If we used to live in a world where, by maintainer choice, doc was not installed by default, that world should IMO stay the same. aptitude's behavior was changed in 2001. It was changed because Recommends has always meant that the package manager should automatically select the recommended package when the recommending package was selected. Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:39:21AM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 06:55:43PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli
z...@debian.org was heard to say:
I don't think that the mere fact that we changed the default behavior
of apt-get/aptitude should get in the way of that maintainer's
choice. If we used to live in a world where, by maintainer choice, doc
was not installed by default, that world should IMO stay the same.
aptitude's behavior was changed in 2001.
Yes, but back then a very tiny teeny slice of our user base was
probably using aptitude. The usage of aptitude became, probably,
common practice when we started recommending its usage in the release
notes. Popcon stats for aptitude support this theory, and I'm
confident yours other feedback mechanisms as the maintainer do the
same.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
Peter Eisentraut pet...@debian.org writes: On Saturday 09 May 2009 00:58:56 Russ Allbery wrote: Wouldn't our users expect to get the documentation with many of these packages by default? Normally you do get some documentation with things, and I've always been surprised by, say, ntp not including any documentation without installing a separate package. We currently have that ntp suggests ntp-doc. Should that be changed to recommends? I don't know that I'm really the person to ask, since I'm kind of on the inside and I don't have a very good feel for what the average user expects. I find it slightly surprising that ntp-doc isn't recommended by ntp, but on the other hand, I rarely use the documentation so it probably saves me disk space. Perhaps a better policy or developer reference type guideline can come out of this thread about what kind of package should or should not depend on documentation in what way. It is kind of idiosyncratic that we insist on man pages being provided in a very specific way but are completely lax about other kinds of documentation, even if the latter might be the primary way to learn about a particular package's functionality. Yeah, that's part of the thought that was going through my head as well. It feels to me like recommending documentation is often the right thing to do. Systems with space constraints can disable automatic installation of recommends (we do routinely on all of our servers). -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
Daniel Burrows wrote: On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 02:58:56PM -0700, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org was heard to say: I think that lintian warning is the right way to do it. I don't -- I think there are too many false positives for a lintian warning given the thread. I also think this is fundamentally going in the wrong direction. Wouldn't our users expect to get the documentation with many of these packages by default? Normally you do get some documentation with things, and I've always been surprised by, say, ntp not including any documentation without installing a separate package. I agree with this. I consider installing a program and *not* installing its documentation to be an unusual situation, and if this bug is filed I will treat it as a request to make my packages worse. aptitude-doc is split out to save archive space and as a feature for users who want to save a few megabytes by removing the user manual, not because I want to force users to jump through hoops to get documentation on their system. Daniel If the documentation is something designed to be viewed in a web browser and the user has broadband, it is arguably easier to find it on the web. Even knowing precisely where it is[/usr/share/doc/aptitude is it -doc or just aptitude, oops I already found it online google aptitude doc first result], it is still arguably faster to find it online and once you bookmark it is virtually identical. Travis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
Roger Lynn ro...@rilynn.demon.co.uk writes: On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 07:00:25PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 09:47:56PM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote: As a practical matter, downgrading these dependencies will cause aptitude and other package managers to believe that the documentation is unnecessary and suggest removing it. Even if the user marked as non-automatic the involved -doc packages? Anyhow, even if it is the case, I'm tempted to just reply too bad. The admin will notice that and take it as an occasion for doing a review of which doc she really wants and which she wants not. As a user, I like being able to mark documentation packages as being automatically installed, so that when I remove the associated packages the package manager will automatically offer to remove the then unneeded documentation packages at the same time. Otherwise there is a good chance the documentation packages will litter the system forever, or at least until I get around to doing a manual cleanup (which might never happen). I suppose another way around this would be to be able to mark suggested packages as being automatically installed so they could be removed automatically when the suggesting package is removed. Roger I think a better solution would be to mark packages as tied to each other. Foo-doc or foo-data should be marked as tied to foo. That means as long as foo is installed they will be kept installed. As soon as foo gets removed they fall under the auto-install rule. Unlike Depends, Recommends, Suggests this would be purely a users choice. For example you could tie autotools-dev and devscripts to build-essential. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 06:14:34PM -0400, Travis Crump wrote: If the documentation is something designed to be viewed in a web browser and the user has broadband, it is arguably easier to find it on the web. Even knowing precisely where it is[/usr/share/doc/aptitude is it -doc or just aptitude, oops I already found it online google aptitude doc first result], it is still arguably faster to find it online and once you bookmark it is virtually identical. You are assuming all our user-base has high-speed broadband Internet access which is certainly not the case. High speed Internet access is still a luxury in some countries of the world. Regards Javier signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 06:14:34PM -0400, Travis Crump wrote: If the documentation is something designed to be viewed in a web browser and the user has broadband, it is arguably easier to find it on the web. Even knowing precisely where it is[/usr/share/doc/aptitude is it -doc or just aptitude, oops I already found it online google aptitude doc first result], it is still arguably faster to find it online and once you bookmark it is virtually identical. You are assuming all our user-base has high-speed broadband Internet access which is certainly not the case. High speed Internet access is still a luxury in some countries of the world. Regards Javier Not at all, I wouldn't have mentioned it as a condition if I didn't realize that some people don't have access to it. Popcon suggests only 8% of users are on dial-up[based on package ppp and 'votes'] though admittedly people on dial-up might be less likely to install popcon so say 20% generously. 20% of users needing something wouldn't seem to justify a 'recommends'. I'm not suggesting getting rid of the packages. Travis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 06:14:34PM -0400, Travis Crump wrote: If the documentation is something designed to be viewed in a web browser and the user has broadband, it is arguably easier to find it on the web. Even knowing precisely where it is[/usr/share/doc/aptitude is it -doc or just aptitude, oops I already found it online google aptitude doc first result], it is still arguably faster to find it online and once you bookmark it is virtually identical. You are assuming all our user-base has high-speed broadband Internet access which is certainly not the case. High speed Internet access is still a luxury in some countries of the world. Regards Javier Exactly. Like the U.S.A., for instance. Millions of people are still doomed to dialup, here. Mark Allums -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 11:31:05AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: Wouldn't this MBF shake out which packages actually have good reason for a strong (i.e. pulled-in-by-default-package-tool-behaviour) dependency relationship to their docs from those that do not? At the expense of the time of maintainers who have to close these garbage bugs. That seems like a good reason to go through this exercise. No. Figure out which packages actually should be changed, *then* file bugs. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes: On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 11:31:05AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: That seems like a good reason to go through this exercise. No. Figure out which packages actually should be changed, *then* file bugs. By “this exercise” I'm referring to the discussion here in debian-devel in order to find out which packages need this MBF against them. -- \ “People's Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: Stop the Laurasian | `\ Separatist Movement!” —wiredog, http://kuro5hin.org/ | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
Y Giridhar Appaji Nag wrote: I filed a lintian wishlist bug (#527363) requesting a I/W tag when non documentation packages recommend documentation packages. (...) Would there be any objections to filing minor/wishlist bugs against these packages? I am including a tentative dd-list corresponding to the packages [1] that I found after manually removing some packages [2]. I will modify it based on suggestions. I think that lintian warning is the right way to do it. As we see, there are a lot of false positives, so an eventual mass bug filling will require a lot of manual check before filling the bug (yes, I think the main task in this case should be on the reporter, not on the maintainer). ciao cate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
On Fri, 8 May 2009, Christian Perrier wrote: I bringed the discussion in out maintenance list but dropping Recommends to Suggests is likely to make us provide a broken home page for SWAT by default. We could of course patch SWAT so that the page explicitely says that adding samba-doc is needed but that would be glightly ugly. So, that could be seen as a quite calid use case, indeed..:) As a raw estimation about 50% of the packages I maintain / sponsor use the doc package not only as pure standalone doc but the doc might be used by the help system of the native program / web application. You might argue that in this case the program should be called *-data, but I'd call this nitpicking because the packages in itself are perfectly valid doc packages and make sense on their own. So I do not think that this issue is really atarget for mass bug filing because chances for false positives are to high. I'm fine with a lintian warning which can be overriden by the maintainer in case he decides recommending the doc package is the reight way to go. Kind regards and thanks for the effort anyway Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
On Fri, 8 May 2009 08:58:51 +0200 (CEST) Andreas Tille til...@rki.de wrote: On Fri, 8 May 2009, Christian Perrier wrote: I bringed the discussion in out maintenance list but dropping Recommends to Suggests is likely to make us provide a broken home page for SWAT by default. We could of course patch SWAT so that the page explicitely says that adding samba-doc is needed but that would be glightly ugly. So, that could be seen as a quite calid use case, indeed..:) As a raw estimation about 50% of the packages I maintain / sponsor use the doc package not only as pure standalone doc but the doc might be used by the help system of the native program / web application. In which case, the MBF could concentrate more on libraries and other packages that have -doc packages rather than on applications. Libraries that Recommend: libfoo-doc (as mine did and which I'll fix in the next upload) could conceivably be bringing in the docs not when someone is debugging the library itself (when the docs are useful) but when someone is debugging a reverse dependency - quite possibly for a bug that doesn't relate to the functionality provided by the library. It is helpful for applications to be able to load the Help file - as long as there is a useful message to the user should the -doc package not be installed for any reason. You might argue that in this case the program should be called *-data, but I'd call this nitpicking because the packages in itself are perfectly valid doc packages and make sense on their own. So I do not think that this issue is really atarget for mass bug filing because chances for false positives are to high. I'm fine with a lintian warning which can be overriden by the maintainer in case he decides recommending the doc package is the reight way to go. lintian is probably the best option - a lintian check can also probably handle the distinction between a library -dev package and an application package and the 'Certainty' functionality can deal with corner-cases. -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ pgpLCmZoNawuQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 17:55 +0530, Y Giridhar Appaji Nag wrote: I filed a lintian wishlist bug (#527363) requesting a I/W tag when non documentation packages recommend documentation packages. While I support the effort to reduce disk space usage, I strongly disagree with this proposal. A software is worth nothing without appropriate documentation. When Joe User installs a package, the documentation should be installed as well, automatically (i.e apt-get install perl install the whole upstream package). In my opinion, the main package logically Depends on the -doc package, but the actual dependency header is downgraded to Recommend so system admin can choose to not install it. I think it would be much nicer to file a bug against APT so the user can choose to not install Recommend dependencies that sits in section doc. [APT maintainers will hate me here] With Install-Recommends being the default, many packages pull in a lot of associated documentation. These documentation packages are sometimes large and could be suggested rather than recommended. I noticed different opinions about such bugs on the BTS (See #504042 that went on to be fixed and #526153 that was not). Regarding the perl-doc (Bug #504042), I believe it's a different story. The development documentation for libraries and programming languages should not be installed by the runtime. This probably means that packages like perl, python, texlive... should provide a $foo, $foo-doc and $foo-runtime (or -bin, or lib$foo, or whatever). Other package that needs to depend on that tool should then depend on $foo-runtime. I understand that upstream would sometimes like documentation to be installed alongside the binaries Upstream want it because it's sensible for their (and our) users. but popcon numbers of -doc packages are quite lower the numbers corresponding to the packages that recommend them. Don't make popcon statistics lie. The reason why -doc popcon is much lower than associated package is because -doc are recommended and Debian-installer's tasksel don't install recommend packages. IIRC Would there be any objections to filing minor/wishlist bugs against these packages? I am including a tentative dd-list corresponding to the packages[1] that I found after manually removing some packages[2]. I will modify it based on suggestions. Regards, Franklin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
Frank Lin PIAT fp...@klabs.be wrote: The development documentation for libraries and programming languages should not be installed by the runtime. This probably means that packages like perl, python, texlive... should provide a $foo, $foo-doc and $foo-runtime (or -bin, or lib$foo, or whatever). Other package that needs to depend on that tool should then depend on $foo-runtime. How could we separate texlive-$foo and texlive-$foo-runtime? And would it make any sense? While many people install python just because an application they want needs the interpreter, users don't usually install a TeX system because something needs it - but because they want to right texts. Only in the special case of software documentation does it happen that the documentation is completely written, and the user (developer or buildd) just needs the runtime. Regards, Frank -- Dr. Frank Küster Debian Developer (TeXLive) VCD Aschaffenburg-Miltenberg, ADFC Miltenberg B90/Grüne KV Miltenberg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 08:58:51AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: On Fri, 8 May 2009, Christian Perrier wrote: I bringed the discussion in out maintenance list but dropping Recommends to Suggests is likely to make us provide a broken home page for SWAT by default. We could of course patch SWAT so that the page explicitely says that adding samba-doc is needed but that would be glightly ugly. So, that could be seen as a quite calid use case, indeed..:) As a raw estimation about 50% of the packages I maintain / sponsor use the doc package not only as pure standalone doc but the doc might be used by the help system of the native program / web application. You might argue that in this case the program should be called *-data, but I'd call this nitpicking because the packages in itself are perfectly valid doc packages and make sense on their own. So I do not think that this issue is really atarget for mass bug filing because chances for false positives are to high. I'm fine with a lintian warning which can be overriden by the maintainer in case he decides recommending the doc package is the reight way to go. +1 and this is what I will do for 'fsl' and 'fslview', since the corresponding doc packages provide the online-help of the respective applications -- even though these are plain html files that perfectly fit into a separate doc package. Michael -- GPG key: 1024D/3144BE0F Michael Hanke http://apsy.gse.uni-magdeburg.de/hanke ICQ: 48230050 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
On Fri, 08 May 2009 11:59:27 +0200 Frank Küster fr...@debian.org wrote: Frank Lin PIAT fp...@klabs.be wrote: The development documentation for libraries and programming languages should not be installed by the runtime. This probably means that packages like perl, python, texlive... should provide a $foo, $foo-doc and $foo-runtime (or -bin, or lib$foo, or whatever). Other package that needs to depend on that tool should then depend on $foo-runtime. How could we separate texlive-$foo and texlive-$foo-runtime? And would it make any sense? While many people install python just because an application they want needs the interpreter, users don't usually install a TeX system because something needs it - but because they want to right texts. Not true, I have various texlive packages installed on systems where I've never needed to write anything in TeX. I do use latex-beamer on some systems but one other systems where latex-beamer is not used, texlive is primarily brought in by docbook-utils, even if I don't need the TeX parts of docbook-utils. Converting docbook to HTML doesn't need TeX - only the conversion to PDF-type. We have docbook-xsl and others for those situations where packages use docbook conversions to HTML at build-time but docbook-utils is still useful. Even then, there is no need for someone using docbook2pdf to understand or even refer to the TeX documentation. Any TeX errors when converting from docbook to PDF via TeX are a bug in the tool doing the conversion to TeX, the user cannot be expected to care as long as their docbook syntax is correct. TeX is not the source for that conversion, it is a step-along-the-way and, as such, does not deserve to have the TeX docs installed. TeX docs should only be installed on systems where users need to write TeX - any dependencies that bring in TeX docs merely to support converting some other format into TeX as a step to TeX converting that on to yet another format, IMHO *must not* mandate that the TeX docs are also installed. texlive needs to make this possible for packages like docbook-utils. That, to me, means splitting the texlive runtime out from the docs. I rarely write TeX but I write a lot of docbook and expect to be able to convert that to PDF when necessary - without needing to care about how that happens or how to write TeX myself. Please support docbook-utils having a dependency *just* on the TeX runtime and not requiring the TeX docs. The bug in that dependency chain is in texlive-base which has Depends: texlive-doc-base - in the context of 'apt-get install docbook-utils', that is entirely unwarranted. Only in the special case of software documentation does it happen that the documentation is completely written, and the user (developer or buildd) just needs the runtime. Umm, we have a lot of people writing and building software documentation in things like docbook -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ pgp8hRjcWZl3e.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
On Fr, 08 Mai 2009, Neil Williams wrote: TeX docs should only be installed on systems where users need to write TeX - any dependencies that bring in TeX docs merely to support Come on. That we do NOT install the docs by default is already a concession. We could stop this discussion and I kill all the -doc pakcages and include the doc files unconditionally into the packages, due to the requirements of the LPPL. Do you prefer that? The bottom line is that *without* user interaction the documentation files *HAVE*TO*BE*INSTALLED*. Full stop. From the LPPL: /--- | 2. You may distribute a complete, unmodified copy of the Work as you | received it. Distribution of only part of the Work is considered | modification of the Work, and no right to distribute such a Derived | Work may be assumed under the terms of this clause. \--- Best wishes Norbert --- Dr. Norbert Preining prein...@logic.atVienna University of Technology Debian Developer prein...@debian.org Debian TeX Group gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094 --- SIMPRIM (n.) The little movement of false modesty by which a girl with a cavernous visible cleavage pulls her skirt down over her knees. --- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
Zitat von Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org: I rarely write TeX but I write a lot of docbook and expect to be able to convert that to PDF when necessary - without needing to care about how that happens or how to write TeX myself. Well, you might as well use the FO output and use fop to convert to PDF. This implies that you use docbook XML. HS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
Daniel Burrows dburr...@debian.org (07/05/2009): As a practical matter, downgrading these dependencies will cause aptitude and other package managers to believe that the documentation is unnecessary and suggest removing it. So that one has a chance to notice possibly unneeded doc? Works for me. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 04:06:47PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Daniel Burrows dburr...@debian.org (07/05/2009): As a practical matter, downgrading these dependencies will cause aptitude and other package managers to believe that the documentation is unnecessary and suggest removing it. So that one has a chance to notice possibly unneeded doc? Works for me. You don't need to wait for these dependencies to be changed to notice possibly unneeded docs: deborphan -n --guess-doc | grep -- '-doc$' The need to grep for doc packages for this use case can be avoided after a option to ignore libraries has been be added to deborphan, which will happen when tags replace sections in Debian or, if requested, earlier. Carsten -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 09:47:56PM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote:
As a practical matter, downgrading these dependencies will cause
aptitude and other package managers to believe that the documentation
is unnecessary and suggest removing it.
Even if the user marked as non-automatic the involved -doc packages?
Anyhow, even if it is the case, I'm tempted to just reply too
bad. The admin will notice that and take it as an occasion for doing
a review of which doc she really wants and which she wants not.
Also, I see no other way of doing that transition ... Do you have any
aptitude-fu suggestion? :)
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 10:14:05AM +0200, Frank Lin PIAT wrote:
While I support the effort to reduce disk space usage, I strongly
disagree with this proposal.
A software is worth nothing without appropriate documentation.
No, that's subjective, with the subject being the package
maintainer. If the maintainer considered the software worth nothing
without doc, he could have (in the past) marked the -doc package as
*dependency* as that was the only way in the past to have it installed
by default.
I don't think that the mere fact that we changed the default behavior
of apt-get/aptitude should get in the way of that maintainer's
choice. If we used to live in a world where, by maintainer choice, doc
was not installed by default, that world should IMO stay the same.
That is why I interpret the spirit of the proposal, and that is why
I'm in favor of it.
Just my 0.02€,
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
Le jeudi 07 mai 2009 à 17:55 +0530, Y Giridhar Appaji Nag a écrit : Debian GNOME Maintainers pkg-gnome-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org devhelp (U) False positive. A documentation browser is useless without documentation to browse. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in `- future understand things” -- Jörg Schilling signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 06:55:43PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 10:14:05AM +0200, Frank Lin PIAT wrote: While I support the effort to reduce disk space usage, I strongly disagree with this proposal. A software is worth nothing without appropriate documentation. No, that's subjective, with the subject being the package maintainer. If the maintainer considered the software worth nothing without doc, he could have (in the past) marked the -doc package as *dependency* as that was the only way in the past to have it installed by default. Yes, and the MBF proposal *doesn't* take into account packages that previously *did* have a hard dep on their doc packages and only demoted it to a Recommends: once the default behavior changed. Cf. swat, samba-doc. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
On Thu, 07 May 2009, Y Giridhar Appaji Nag wrote: From policy 7.2 Binary Dependencies - Depends, Recommends, Suggests, Enhances, Pre-Depends Recommends This declares a strong, but not absolute, dependency. The Recommends field should list packages that would be found together with this one in all but unusual installations. This determination is necessarily a judgement call, and is kind of up to the maintainer. If you run across specific instances of packages where the documentation Recommends appears gratuitous, filing wishlist bugs with specific rationale that would be convincing to the maintainer is reasonable, but it shouldn't be a mass filing. Frankly, if I were you, I'd restrict myself to particularly large -doc packages which are pulled in by packages with high popcon scores to start with, at least. With Install-Recommends being the default, many packages pull in a lot of associated documentation. These documentation packages are sometimes large and could be suggested rather than recommended. In cases where you actually care about the size of the documentation, you're presumably being extra careful about the packages which are Recommends:, and probably aren't installing them automatically. Don Armstrong -- This message brought to you by weapons of mass destruction related program activities, and the letter G. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org wrote: On Fri, 08 May 2009 11:59:27 +0200 Frank Küster fr...@debian.org wrote: Frank Lin PIAT fp...@klabs.be wrote: The development documentation for libraries and programming languages should not be installed by the runtime. This probably means that packages like perl, python, texlive... should provide a $foo, $foo-doc and $foo-runtime (or -bin, or lib$foo, or whatever). Other package that needs to depend on that tool should then depend on $foo-runtime. How could we separate texlive-$foo and texlive-$foo-runtime? And would it make any sense? While many people install python just because an application they want needs the interpreter, users don't usually install a TeX system because something needs it - but because they want to right texts. Not true, I have Very true, had I written what I had in mind: s/users/most users/. Only in the special case of software documentation does it happen that the documentation is completely written, and the user (developer or buildd) just needs the runtime. Umm, we have a lot of people writing and building software documentation in things like docbook And that's good, but it's still a special case. Instead of discussing doc or nodoc, it would be much more valuable if someone could tell us which LaTeX packages are really needed by docbook and similar documentation systems, so that we could taylor a minmal package for that - without a doc dependency. Regards, Frank -- Dr. Frank Küster Debian Developer (TeXLive) VCD Aschaffenburg-Miltenberg, ADFC Miltenberg B90/Grüne KV Miltenberg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
Giacomo Catenazzi c...@debian.org writes: Y Giridhar Appaji Nag wrote: Would there be any objections to filing minor/wishlist bugs against these packages? I am including a tentative dd-list corresponding to the packages [1] that I found after manually removing some packages [2]. I will modify it based on suggestions. I think that lintian warning is the right way to do it. I don't -- I think there are too many false positives for a lintian warning given the thread. I also think this is fundamentally going in the wrong direction. Wouldn't our users expect to get the documentation with many of these packages by default? Normally you do get some documentation with things, and I've always been surprised by, say, ntp not including any documentation without installing a separate package. As we see, there are a lot of false positives, so an eventual mass bug filling will require a lot of manual check before filling the bug (yes, I think the main task in this case should be on the reporter, not on the maintainer). If there are too many false positives for a mass bug filing, there are probably too many false positives for a Lintian check. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org writes: In which case, the MBF could concentrate more on libraries and other packages that have -doc packages rather than on applications. Libraries that Recommend: libfoo-doc (as mine did and which I'll fix in the next upload) could conceivably be bringing in the docs not when someone is debugging the library itself (when the docs are useful) but when someone is debugging a reverse dependency - quite possibly for a bug that doesn't relate to the functionality provided by the library. Hm, that's a good point. libfoo-dev recommending libfoo-doc makes a lot of sense to me, but libfoo1 shouldn't be recommending a *-doc package. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes: Yes, and the MBF proposal *doesn't* take into account packages that previously *did* have a hard dep on their doc packages and only demoted it to a Recommends: once the default behavior changed. Cf. swat, samba-doc. Wouldn't this MBF shake out which packages actually have good reason for a strong (i.e. pulled-in-by-default-package-tool-behaviour) dependency relationship to their docs from those that do not? That seems like a good reason to go through this exercise. -- \ “There is something wonderful in seeing a wrong-headed majority | `\ assailed by truth.” —John Kenneth Galbraith, 1989-07-28 | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
Hi debian-devel, From policy 7.2 Binary Dependencies - Depends, Recommends, Suggests, Enhances, Pre-Depends Recommends This declares a strong, but not absolute, dependency. The Recommends field should list packages that would be found together with this one in all but unusual installations. Suggests This is used to declare that one package may be more useful with one or more others. Using this field tells the packaging system and the user that the listed packages are related to this one and can perhaps enhance its usefulness, but that installing this one without them is perfectly reasonable. I filed a lintian wishlist bug (#527363) requesting a I/W tag when non documentation packages recommend documentation packages. With Install-Recommends being the default, many packages pull in a lot of associated documentation. These documentation packages are sometimes large and could be suggested rather than recommended. I noticed different opinions about such bugs on the BTS (See #504042 that went on to be fixed and #526153 that was not). I understand that upstream would sometimes like documentation to be installed alongside the binaries, but popcon numbers of -doc packages are quite lower the numbers corresponding to the packages that recommend them. Would there be any objections to filing minor/wishlist bugs against these packages? I am including a tentative dd-list corresponding to the packages [1] that I found after manually removing some packages [2]. I will modify it based on suggestions. [1] grep-dctrl --pattern=-doc --field=Recommends --and --not \ --pattern=-dev --field=Package --show-field=Package [2] Mostly haskell, tcl/tk, texlive and gtk/gnome documentation packages a few others like emacs-goodies-el, twisted-doc etc. I wonder if I should remove the following packages from the list. devhelp education-common education-electronics Daniel Leidert (dale) daniel.leid...@wgdd.de docbook-xsl Hideki Yamane (Debian-JP) henr...@debian.or.jp mirmon Salvador Abreu s...@debian.org gprolog Bill Allombert ballo...@debian.org gap Thorsten Alteholz deb...@alteholz.de mpb Henrik Andreasson deb...@han.pp.se pike7.6 (U) Daniel Baumann dan...@debian.org apcupsd dvdisaster wmii wmii2 Dominique Belhachemi domi...@cs.tu-berlin.de z88 Luciano Bello luci...@debian.org imagemagick (U) Hilko Bengen ben...@debian.org sepia Philipp Benner pben...@uni-osnabrueck.de python-biopython (U) wise (U) Jay Berkenbilt q...@debian.org vips Jan Beyer j...@beathovn.de bibus (U) W. Martin Borgert deba...@debian.org snacc snacc (U) Raphael Bossek boss...@debian.org python-4suite Fathi Boudra f...@debian.org qt4-x11 (U) qtcreator (U) Joachim Breitner nome...@debian.org xmonad Ludovic Brenta lbre...@debian.org gnat-gps Thomas Bushnell, BSG t...@debian.org gnucash lilypond Daniel Burrows dburr...@debian.org aptitude Antal A. Buss ab...@puj.edu.co python-simpy Stefano Canepa s...@linux.it spe (U) Hubert Chathi uho...@debian.org asymptote Pierre Chifflier pol...@debian.org esvn Christian Holm Christensen ch...@nbi.dk root-system Isaac Clerencia is...@debian.org phppgadmin Jesus Climent mo...@debian.org dspam (U) Peter Collingbourne pe...@pcc.me.uk ladr Arnaud Cornet acor...@debian.org webgen0.4 Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org xorg (U) Debian DSPAM Maintainers pkg-dspam-m...@lists.alioth.debian.org dspam Debian Edu Developers debian-...@lists.debian.org debian-edu Debian GGZ Maintainers pkg-ggz-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org meta-ggz Debian GIS Project pkg-grass-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org gmt Debian GNOME Maintainers pkg-gnome-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org devhelp (U) Debian Multimedia Team debian-multime...@lists.debian.org ocp (U) Debian OCaml Maintainers debian-ocaml-ma...@lists.debian.org omake Debian Python Modules Team python-modules-t...@lists.alioth.debian.org pymilter (U) quixote (U) Debian QOF packaging team pkg-qof-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org qof Debian Qt/KDE Maintainers debian-qt-...@lists.debian.org koffice qt4-x11 qtcreator Debian Ruby Extras Maintainers pkg-ruby-extras-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org libtioga-ruby (U) Debian Samba Maintainers pkg-samba-ma...@lists.alioth.debian.org samba Debian Science Maintainers debian-science-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org bibus eprover Debian Science Team debian-science-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org debian-science scilab Debian Scientific Computing Team pkg-scicomp-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org parmetis Debian X Strike Force debia...@lists.debian.org xorg Debian XML/SGML Group debian-xml-sgml-p...@lists.alioth.debian.org docbook-xsl (U) Debian-Med Packaging Team debian-med-packag...@lists.alioth.debian.org emboss-explorer python-biopython tree-puzzle wise
Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
Y Giridhar Appaji Nag app...@debian.org wrote: I filed a lintian wishlist bug (#527363) requesting a I/W tag when non documentation packages recommend documentation packages. That might be a good idea. However, for the texlive packages, we'll just add lintian overrides. With Install-Recommends being the default, many packages pull in a lot of associated documentation. These documentation packages are sometimes large and could be suggested rather than recommended. I noticed different opinions about such bugs on the BTS (See #504042 that went on to be fixed and #526153 that was not). I understand that upstream would sometimes like documentation to be installed alongside the binaries, For many parts of texlive, the license requires binary distributions to be complete. This is why we refused to create separate doc packages for a long time in the past. We have only separated the doc packages after Recommends became installed by default. At least that's how I recall the order of events; I might be wrong, but I think the argument holds nevertheless: We can do the splitting of the docs only because it takes a deliberate action to get rid of them, just as anyone receiving a complete binary distribution is able to rm -rf the doc directory. Would there be any objections to filing minor/wishlist bugs against these packages? We'll just add wontfix tags, so you might as well not bother to file the bugs against the texlive packages. Regards, Frank -- Dr. Frank Küster Debian Developer (TeXLive) VCD Aschaffenburg-Miltenberg, ADFC Miltenberg B90/Grüne KV Miltenberg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
On Thu, 7 May 2009 17:55:44 +0530 Y Giridhar Appaji Nag app...@debian.org wrote: Would there be any objections to filing minor/wishlist bugs against these packages? I am including a tentative dd-list corresponding to the packages [1] that I found after manually removing some packages [2]. I will modify it based on suggestions. Debian QOF packaging team pkg-qof-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org qof I'll fix that in the next upload, no need for a bug report. -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ pgpN5N6MGddAg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
Y Giridhar Appaji Nag ha scritto: Would there be any objections to filing minor/wishlist bugs against these packages? I am including a tentative dd-list corresponding to the packages [1] that I found after manually removing some packages [2]. I will modify it based on suggestions. Luca Falavigna dktrkr...@ubuntu.com drpython Fixed in SVN, will appear in the next upload. Thank you! :) -- . ''`. Luca Falavigna : :' : Ubuntu MOTU Developer `. `'` Debian Maintainer `- GPG Key: 0x86BC2A50 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
As a practical matter, downgrading these dependencies will cause aptitude and other package managers to believe that the documentation is unnecessary and suggest removing it. Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
Quoting Y Giridhar Appaji Nag (app...@debian.org): Debian Samba Maintainers pkg-samba-ma...@lists.alioth.debian.org samba swat Recommends: samba-doc swat is a web interface to administer samba. Its main page currently has links to Samba documentation in HTML. I bringed the discussion in out maintenance list but dropping Recommends to Suggests is likely to make us provide a broken home page for SWAT by default. We could of course patch SWAT so that the page explicitely says that adding samba-doc is needed but that would be glightly ugly. So, that could be seen as a quite calid use case, indeed..:) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
