On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 17:00:02 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 15:03:20 +0100, Henk Breimer wrote: > >> [net@pietro ~]$ yum remove libthai > >> Remove 266 Package(s) >> >> Is this ok [y/N]: >> no, of course. >> Remaining question: is this the way 'requires' should be used? > > You show that you don't understand the reason for this. This is a shared > library that is linked with another system library: Pango. It results in > an automatic 'Requires' on the libthai library SONAME in the pango > package, since the library is required at run-time and isn't optional. > > $ repoquery --whatrequires libthai.so.0 libthai-0:0.1.9-4.fc9.i386 > pango-0:1.20.4-1.fc9.i386 > libthai-devel-0:0.1.9-4.fc9.i386 > scim-thai-0:0.1.1-2.fc9.i386 > pango-0:1.20.1-1.fc9.i386 > > Pango in turn is required by many a dozen packages. Removing Pango > creates a long dependency chain of packages that would need to be > removed, too. > > In case you want to remove a system library like LibThai, you would need > to disable it in Pango -- or rewrite Pango to load the library as an > optional plugin (that's likely harder). With respect, I don't think you've even approached the point -- certainly not mine, if it's any different from Henk Breimer's. You're making a claim that, in essence, amounts to "Whatever is, is right" -- or, if you prefer, "It has to be done that way, because that's the way we did it." Some of us don't call that a reason; a history, maybe, or a historical accident -- but something to be remedied, not accepted helplessly. Pango should never have required libthai in the first place -- not in a release -- not if libthai is anything remotely like what its name suggests. (And, btw, gpk and pirut before it both list it among apps that exist specifically for the benefit of those who prefer particular languages -- as of course they are welcome to do.) I can imagine that it *did* require it, initially, if for instance its author wrote the first version in Thai. I applaud the achievement. But do you really want to defend the fact that that requirement was not found, or else found and not remedied, by any other Fedora developers? Do you want to assert that any and all apps should be left to continue indefinitely requiring whatever their first versions may happen to require, including endless variety of languages? Surely not. We have developers all over the world, who must think, and often write (first drafts at least), in a vast number of languages. Should we jam some latter-day Tower of Babel into Fedora? Are we to throw away the huge benefit that fell into our laps when the Internet developed a lingua franca from its outset? If it had arisen, like so much early technology, in a thousand places speaking a thousand tongues (many since extinct), would we be where we are, or even near?? What if all kernel development had required mastery of Finnish, and still did?? (I ask that as one who happens to take great delight in Finnish; I found it glorious fun to learn. Some of you might not.) -- Beartooth Staffwright, PhD, Neo-Redneck Linux Convert I do know something about multilingual groups, and the history of tongues. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
