Max Spevack wrote:
7) Dependency hell
(Score:5, Interesting)
by Tet
The introduction of yum has vastly improved the user experience when
installing software, or updating existing packages. However, it's brought
with it a new kind of dependency hell. For example, if I want to install a
PostScript previewer:
% yum install evince
[...]
Installing:
evince x86_64 0.5.1-3 core 773 k
Installing for dependencies:
nautilus x86_64 2.14.1-1.fc5.1 updates-released 3.9 M
nautilus-cd-burner x86_64 2.14.2-1 updates-released 414 k
That's clearly wrong. I only want to install a PostScript previewer. Doing
so should not require a filemanager (which I don't need or want), and
certainly not a CD burner. But these are added as dependencies due to the
clumsy packaging that seems to be increasingly prevalent in Fedora.
Perhaps (and I remain unconvinced) there's some aspect of evince that can
make use of nautilus being present. But if so, I haven't seen it. I could
well believe that nautilus could make use of evince, but not really the
other way around. But assume for the sake of argument that it can use
nautilus. That still isn't a reason to have it depend on it.
Dependencies should be packages that are required in order for another to
run, not packages that will merely enable additional functionality. In
this case -- the prime function of evince is to view documents, which
isn't significantly enhanced by having a file browser present.
Fedora is still my distribution of choice, but it's becoming increasingly
hard to use for those of us that prefer to run with a minimal system due
to the way that the dependencies have been getting out of hand. Are there
any plans to fix this, or is any work already underway to do so? I
understand that some consideration has been given to providing "soft
dependencies" within RPM (like dpkg's suggested dependencies), which would
help. Is there a timeframe for this? Is anything else being done?
I quite understand the focus on getting the system to be usable for the
average unskilled user. But the impression I'm getting is that it's being
done at the expense of letting those of us that know what we're doing do
what we want. Does Fedora have a position on the type of users it's aiming
for, or is it still trying to be a general purpose OS?
A)
To your specific example, ask and ye shall see some improvement.
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201967
To your more general question, there's a couple of things that play a
part:
Part of the dependency requirements come from the manner in which the
packages are written, in which (for example) it's far more common for
someone to install a large set of inter-related packages than just a
single package. Regardless of that, it's entirely possible (such as in
this specific evince example) that some extra work can simplify the
dependency requirements. Bugzilla is always the best way to bring issues
like that to the attention of the packagers. From there, it's just a
matter of code and time.
The title of this question "dependency hell" is usually referring to a
different myth of Fedora that continues to be widely believed in the
community despite the improvements brought by yum.
His question was specifically about the less complained about minimal
dependency issue. While some people are emotional about it, it can be
improved as you state in the response on a case-by-case basis through
careful analysis and Bugzilla.
I think it may be important to attack the more general "dependency hell"
myth somewhere within these responses?
Warren
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list
fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly
