[arch-general] depends vs. optdepends

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 19:01:16 -0600, Doug Newgard wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 18:39:55 -0600
> Troy Engel <troyengel+arch at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Nor did I ever claim it was (and what are you even arguing here?)
> > -- I was careful to mention the packaging tools (RPM/DEB) as both
> > of these infrastructures underpin many distros. In both of these
> > systems there is automatic library dependency tracking/inclusion as
> > part of the process; if a binary is in a package and has a shared
> > library dependency, it's implicitly pulled in as a need to install
> > (if not explicitly defined). As far as I am able to tell, Pacman
> > has no such capability so everything must be done manually.
> > 
> > -te
> 
> Yes, pacman is a much simpler package manager, but that has nothing to
> do with Arch's packaging practices in this case. Arch will generally
> keep a package together as shipped by upstream unless there's a very
> compelling reason to split it up. Debian is the other extreme where
> they split just about everything into it's own package. Simply
> different philosophies.

Regarding optional dependencies DEB is insane complicated. Optional
dependencies are split into suggested and recommended dependencies. The
way to not install or to install those different kinds of optional
dependencies is handled in opposing work-flows. While I don't maintain
my Debian and *buntu installs, I still help users on DEB based distros
lists. I very often need to explain how to not install or to get rid of
suggested and or recommended hard dependencies and how to install
suggested and/or recommended dependencies.

Hopefully the "tribal knowledge" how maintainers decide what becomes a
suggested and what becomes a recommended dependency will be add by Troy
to the Debian and Ubuntu Wikis. The editing of the Arch Wiki IMO is
nonsense, just spreading FUD.