>> Once upon a time, Patrice Dumas <pertusus@xxxxxxx> said: >> > Fedora is not in a bad state with respect to fine grained dependencies >> > (it was quite bad back, at least up to FC4), mostly >> > * thanks to olpc, >> > * to maintainers who reported these issues, >> > * because there is always some space needed on the live disc >> > * thanks to split to some -libs because of multilib issues. >> > >> > Unless it has been solved, there was still an issue with metacity (and >> > maybe gnome) and themes interdependencies. Also there are still >> > monolithic big beasts like texlive, but I am not sure that it is >> > that desirable to fix those. >> >> I tried to install ntop on a firewall (minimal F9 install, tuned via >> kickstart). There were 70 packages added because of dependencies, >> including metacity. > > > I agree here...and I don't think Fedora is not in a bad state regarding > fine-grained deps... > if you want a point of comparison, take a look at Debian, maybe. Or the > *BSD's. Yes there are still issues, but its improving and just about every bug I've filed for dependencies over the last couple of months has been fixed quick and effectively (with only a few that will remain nameless cause me issues). Maybe the Server SIG guys should have a tracking bug for all these sort of things and people should file bugs against the package and add it as a blocker to the Server SIG tracking bug (see Fedora Mini tracking bug linked to off the SIG page as an example). So if its a problem where's the bug report, I don't currently see any open bugs against ntop at all which means the problem has either been fixed, or the maintainer isn't aware there's an issue. Having a quick look at the ntop rpm it looks like its the graphviz bit the pulls in all the gnome stuff, no doubt that can be split out into a sub package, as could probably the mysql and perl dependencies. Regards, Peter -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
