Re: virtual package names for web browsers (was Re: Uninstalling Chromium)
On 2021-07-21 12:05, Reco wrote: As always, any attempt on improving Debian is welcome, regardless of the outcome. It's not like Debian needs an improvement IMO, but nevertheless. Personally I liked it when it was files and documentation. The internet distribution of things is obviously handy but your PC being a client to some server somewhere, integrating your PC into the interweb I don't think is that great. I'm not saying Debian does this just that it is a trend, mick -- Key ID4BFEBB31
Re: virtual package names for web browsers (was Re: Uninstalling Chromium)
On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 07:36:09AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: The goalposts were moved in the text that was omitted up there. "Such a role" refers to the hypothetical generic use of gnome-www-browser to act as a virtual package (replacing x-www-browser) in all contexts, not just the dependency list of gnome-core. The statement was that it would be confusing for, say, debian-goodies to suggest gnome-www-browser. Sorry yes, that's right. A concrete example was this lxde bug I filed 5 years ago: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=833268 Perhaps the developers should consider a different virtual package name which omits the "x-" part and also the "gnome-" part. Maybe something like gui-www-browser. But this isn't my area of expertise, so feel free to ignore my suggestion if it's unsuitable. I started mocking something up earlier today and that's exactly the name I picked too :-) -- Please do not CC me for listmail. Jonathan Dowland ✎j...@debian.org https://jmtd.net
Re: virtual package names for web browsers (was Re: Uninstalling Chromium)
Hi. On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 07:36:09AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 02:05:10PM +0300, Reco wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 11:45:07AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 01:34:50PM +0300, Reco wrote: > > > > One would think that gnome-www-browser virtual package would fit such > > > > role perfectly. I mean, if GNOME DE has some special requirement for a > > > > browser, and Debian already has such aptly named virtual package - > > > > surely it can be considered as a suitable dependency? > > > > > > It'd be confusing for people not using GNOME. > > > > I lost you here. > > The goalposts were moved in the text that was omitted up there. "Such a > role" refers to the hypothetical generic use of gnome-www-browser to > act as a virtual package (replacing x-www-browser) in all contexts, > not just the dependency list of gnome-core. > > The statement was that it would be confusing for, say, debian-goodies > to suggest gnome-www-browser. I see, thank you. Reco
Re: virtual package names for web browsers (was Re: Uninstalling Chromium)
On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 02:05:10PM +0300, Reco wrote: > On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 11:45:07AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 01:34:50PM +0300, Reco wrote: > > > One would think that gnome-www-browser virtual package would fit such > > > role perfectly. I mean, if GNOME DE has some special requirement for a > > > browser, and Debian already has such aptly named virtual package - > > > surely it can be considered as a suitable dependency? > > > > It'd be confusing for people not using GNOME. > > I lost you here. The goalposts were moved in the text that was omitted up there. "Such a role" refers to the hypothetical generic use of gnome-www-browser to act as a virtual package (replacing x-www-browser) in all contexts, not just the dependency list of gnome-core. The statement was that it would be confusing for, say, debian-goodies to suggest gnome-www-browser. Perhaps the developers should consider a different virtual package name which omits the "x-" part and also the "gnome-" part. Maybe something like gui-www-browser. But this isn't my area of expertise, so feel free to ignore my suggestion if it's unsuitable.
Re: virtual package names for web browsers (was Re: Uninstalling Chromium)
On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 11:45:07AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 01:34:50PM +0300, Reco wrote: > > One would think that gnome-www-browser virtual package would fit such > > role perfectly. I mean, if GNOME DE has some special requirement for a > > browser, and Debian already has such aptly named virtual package - > > surely it can be considered as a suitable dependency? > > It'd be confusing for people not using GNOME. I lost you here. A user installs GNOME DE, one way or another. A user gets a browser, which is suitable for GNOME DE. That's the way gnome-core currently works, there's nothing wrong here. Another user does not install GNOME DE, but installs a browser, which just happens to be either firefox-esr, chromium or epiphany-browser. First two are popular, popcon should show this. Currently (as of stable) firefox-esr, chromium and epiphany-browser provide gnome-www-browser. gnome-core directly depends on either on these three packages. Hence the GNOME user will get at least one of these packages, and can even install all three at the same time. Non-GNOME user will get gnome-www-browser by installing either of these three packages, because of Provides. And if non-GNOME user wants this, a user can install even all three at the same time. Again, the current stable behaves like this, so I do not understand how exactly replacing dependency on gnome-core will cause a confusion for non-GNOME user. I'd expect some breakage for GNOME users, but I cannot imagine where exactly it could happen. After all, Provides merely does what it's supposed to do, it does not force additional packages on a user. > This is an area of interest for me (virtual package names, what Policy > dictates, how we describe what they mean, semantically; how we do so in > a way such that we can check their usage in the archive mechanically, > etc.) so I might try to pick up my work on improving it post-bullseye. As always, any attempt on improving Debian is welcome, regardless of the outcome. It's not like Debian needs an improvement IMO, but nevertheless. Reco
