[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [NEW IDEA] Automatic removal of dependencies

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006, Jesse Keating wrote:

On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 18:13 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
One would probably want two levels of soft requires - the syntax is
implemented in rpm but not sure if they're currently distinguishable
outside the spec syntax:
Requires(missingok) and Requires(hint) where "missingok" is something
you'd want to install by default but removing of the dependency wont
break the package, "hint" being .. well, a hint that this might be
useful with this software but not installed automatically. Enhances is
basically Suggests reversed for situations where Suggests cannot be
because the main package has no knowledge of the enhancing package.

This seems to be spiraling into major complexity and lots of ways for
developers to get it wrong.  Boo.  I've never been very thrilled with
the idea of soft deps, and I really haven't seen it done right.

What's so difficult about this:

1) It's hard dependency, without it the package will not run. 2) It's something that should be installed for "best user experience"
   but the package will run without it. Depsolvers treat it as any old
   hard dependency expect dont whine about it if it's removed. A good
   example of this would be evolution requiring spamassassin - evo will
   work just fine without spamassassin and in many environments the
   spamassassin is completely redundant to have on every workstation.
3) It's something that will bring in additional functionality useful
   for some users. Nothing more than a hint that a depsolver (GUI) might
   list "you might additionally find some of these useful". An example of
   this would be xmms + it's myriad of plugins: xmms-sid isn't something
   most people will care about.

	- Panu -

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]