[pacman-dev] "explicit dependencies", a compromise between explicit and deps

[Nagy Gabor]

Hi!
I think you misinterpret something.

>       This can be a bad thing when the user installs the packages
> --asdeps because no package states the dependencies on them, but they
> are needed/wanted for some reason.  (Often this means the "dependent"
> package misses a dependency and this package should be fixed, but not
> always)

In this case user should install the package explicitly.

> What I propose is an intermediate state between 'explicit' and
> 'dependency', called 'explicit dependency'.  This would be the new
> default way when the user wants to install something as a dep (usually
> because a package recommended it), whereas the 'old' '--asdeps'
> installs a package as a 'real' dependency (eg: do this only when you're
> sure you'll install a package that depends on them, otherwise the
> package will be an orphan and get cleaned up someday or not be restored
> when restoring/cloning a system)
>

explicit dependency =3D=3D explicit.

Maybe 'implicit' terminology would be better instead of 'dependency'.
For details, read my (ngaba) comment here: =20
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=3D55526

Bye

P.S.: Sorry about my previous direct reply (I hate horde).



------------------------------------------------------
SZTE Egyetemi Konyvtar - http://www.bibl.u-szeged.hu
This message was sent using IMP: http://horde.org/imp/