[arch-general] suggestion for pacman: Recommended packages.
The current case for many packages that use optdepends is as follows. Let's say a package called package1 installs some extra binaries or plugins. Those extra not so used binaries or plugins have extra dependencies (let's call them libsomething) marked as optdepends. so on installation pacman will say something: optional dependency: libsomething needed for package1 plugins to work. How about instead those extra binary files or plugins are split into another package called package1-plugins and have libsomething as plain dependency? Then on package1 installation, pacman should say something like: Recommended packages: package1-plugins for blah blah functionality. A good example is the pacman package itself which has an optional dependency on python for rankmirrors script. Maybe we could split it into a separate pacman-rankmirrors which depends on python the when a user installs/upgrades pacman package, he/she is prompted for recommended package pacman-rankmirrors for blah blah functionality. pacman-rankmirrors would depend on python. I think this is a better and cleaner approach. Obviously not every package can use that approach but it will clean some optdepends and remove some ldd errors because of uninstalled optdepends. Another thing, anyway to make pacman -Rns somepackage also remove optional dependencies that no other package uses?
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:40 +0200, "Hussam Al-Tayeb" <ht990332@gmail.com> wrote:
The current case for many packages that use optdepends is as follows. Let's say a package called package1 installs some extra binaries or plugins. Those extra not so used binaries or plugins have extra dependencies (let's call them libsomething) marked as optdepends. so on installation pacman will say something: optional dependency: libsomething needed for package1 plugins to work.
How about instead those extra binary files or plugins are split into another package called package1-plugins and have libsomething as plain dependency? Then on package1 installation, pacman should say something like: Recommended packages: package1-plugins for blah blah functionality.
This is known as 'debian'. I think it's overkill and offers no practical benefit.
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 22:29:03 +1100 "James Rayner" <james@archlinux.org> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:40 +0200, "Hussam Al-Tayeb" <ht990332@gmail.com> wrote:
The current case for many packages that use optdepends is as follows. Let's say a package called package1 installs some extra binaries or plugins. Those extra not so used binaries or plugins have extra dependencies (let's call them libsomething) marked as optdepends. so on installation pacman will say something: optional dependency: libsomething needed for package1 plugins to work.
How about instead those extra binary files or plugins are split into another package called package1-plugins and have libsomething as plain dependency? Then on package1 installation, pacman should say something like: Recommended packages: package1-plugins for blah blah functionality.
This is known as 'debian'.
I think it's overkill and offers no practical benefit.
and what problem would that solve? it is exactly the same "we suggest you install this because it may be useful to you so we explain it to you in a line of text and you could take manual action if you want", just a different (and a more complicated) implementation.
James Rayner schrieb:
How about instead those extra binary files or plugins are split into another package called package1-plugins and have libsomething as plain dependency? Then on package1 installation, pacman should say something like: Recommended packages: package1-plugins for blah blah functionality.
This is known as 'debian'.
That made me laugh.
I think it's overkill and offers no practical benefit.
Agreed. Just because we are now able to split packages, we should not overdo it like other distributions have.
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 22:29 +1100, James Rayner wrote:
The current case for many packages that use optdepends is as follows. Let's say a package called package1 installs some extra binaries or plugins. Those extra not so used binaries or plugins have extra dependencies (let's call them libsomething) marked as optdepends. so on installation pacman will say something: optional dependency: libsomething needed for package1 plugins to work.
How about instead those extra binary files or plugins are split into another package called package1-plugins and have libsomething as
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:40 +0200, "Hussam Al-Tayeb" <ht990332@gmail.com> wrote: plain
dependency? Then on package1 installation, pacman should say something like: Recommended packages: package1-plugins for blah blah functionality.
This is known as 'debian'.
I think it's overkill and offers no practical benefit.
There is a benefit. You quoted part of my email. Did you read the rest? It also better then downsteam "deciding" which goes to depends and which goes to "optdepends"
Hussam Al-Tayeb wrote:
The current case for many packages that use optdepends is as follows. <snip>
I think some of this would be solved if/when we implement this: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Allan/Pacman_OptDepends
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 22:45 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
Hussam Al-Tayeb wrote:
The current case for many packages that use optdepends is as follows. <snip>
I think some of this would be solved if/when we implement this: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Allan/Pacman_OptDepends
Thanks Allan. this is a good solution especially "optdepends can be removed with -Rs" and "optdepends are not orphans unless a flag is specified". Thank you :)
Hi, On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 02:54:30PM +0200, Hussam Al-Tayeb wrote:
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 22:45 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
Hussam Al-Tayeb wrote:
The current case for many packages that use optdepends is as follows. <snip>
I think some of this would be solved if/when we implement this: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Allan/Pacman_OptDepends
Thanks Allan. this is a good solution especially "optdepends can be removed with -Rs" and "optdepends are not orphans unless a flag is specified". Thank you :)
Or install optdepende with the "--asdeps" flag. --
vlad wrote:
Hi, On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 02:54:30PM +0200, Hussam Al-Tayeb wrote:
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 22:45 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
Hussam Al-Tayeb wrote:
The current case for many packages that use optdepends is as follows. <snip>
I think some of this would be solved if/when we implement this: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Allan/Pacman_OptDepends Thanks Allan. this is a good solution especially "optdepends can be removed with -Rs" and "optdepends are not orphans unless a flag is specified". Thank you :)
Or install optdepende with the "--asdeps" flag.
Sure, but then they are orphans and do not associate with the package that "needs" them.
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Hussam Al-Tayeb <ht990332@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 22:45 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
Hussam Al-Tayeb wrote:
The current case for many packages that use optdepends is as follows. <snip>
I think some of this would be solved if/when we implement this: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Allan/Pacman_OptDepends
Thanks Allan. this is a good solution especially "optdepends can be removed with -Rs" and "optdepends are not orphans unless a flag is specified". Thank you :)
Your proposal is not stupid, it would indeed make the optdepends problems obsolete by getting rid of most of the optdepends, and provide cleaner packages and dependencies. Nagy had the same thought in a private discussion we had a while ago. Of course then there is also an increased complexity of packaging with a lot of splitting and a much bigger number of packages. And with that example of pacman and rankmirrors, rankmirrors is a 190 lines python script. I don't think it deserved a package on its own. Anyway for that specific example, some people were not happy about the python dependency and rewrote rankmirrors in bash.
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 16:02 +0100, Xavier wrote:
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Hussam Al-Tayeb <ht990332@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 22:45 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
Hussam Al-Tayeb wrote:
The current case for many packages that use optdepends is as follows. <snip>
I think some of this would be solved if/when we implement this: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Allan/Pacman_OptDepends
Thanks Allan. this is a good solution especially "optdepends can be removed with -Rs" and "optdepends are not orphans unless a flag is specified". Thank you :)
Your proposal is not stupid, it would indeed make the optdepends problems obsolete by getting rid of most of the optdepends, and provide cleaner packages and dependencies. Nagy had the same thought in a private discussion we had a while ago.
Of course then there is also an increased complexity of packaging with a lot of splitting and a much bigger number of packages. And with that example of pacman and rankmirrors, rankmirrors is a 190 lines python script. I don't think it deserved a package on its own. Anyway for that specific example, some people were not happy about the python dependency and rewrote rankmirrors in bash.
pacman package may have been a bad example but you get the general idea.
participants (7)
-
Allan McRae
-
Dieter Plaetinck
-
Hussam Al-Tayeb
-
James Rayner
-
Thomas Bächler
-
vlad
-
Xavier