Matthew Woehlke wrote: > Toshio Kuratomi wrote: >> Callum Lerwick wrote: >>> On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 14:12 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >>>> Applications that consist of multiple packages, such as the game >>>> example, should be designated as a group rather than a looped >>>> dependency. >>> Actually a proper fix is to implement the per-package "explicitly >>> installed/pulled in as a dep" flag that has been discussed several times >>> in the past, and is already implemented (thus proven) in the "aptitude" >>> apt front end. >>> >>> We must address this user interface problem if Fedora is to be a shining >>> beacon of open source light in the looming dark future of closed >>> DRM-laden content delivery services such as Steam, Xbox Live and >>> PlayStation Network. >>> >> That works for a Mom and Pop desktop but doesn't work as a developer's >> workstation. When developing software you might need a library that >> does Foo. Look on the system, hey, I can use libFoo! A few weeks >> later, when you remove Gnome-Foo from your system because your shiny new >> application does the job, your app suddenly can't find libFoo.... > > This implies also that you installed Gnome-Foo-devel for whatever > reason, and that it happened to require libFoo-devel. Otherwise you > probably installed libFoo-devel by hand in order to use libFoo, and > since libFoo-devel depends on libFoo, libFoo wouldn't be removed in this > case. > Not necessarily, as I pointed out here: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-September/msg00235.html """ This is possibly more pronounced in the world of scripting languages where runtime and development bits are one and the same package. """ -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
