On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 02:53:13PM -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 1:13 PM, Brian Murray <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Why is it necessary to modify individual packages so that GNOME
> > Software won't uninstall them?
> > Is update-manager being a dependency of ubuntu-desktop not enough to
> > prevent it from being uninstalled?
> Thank you for asking.
> GNOME Software does not notify the user about dependencies that will
> be uninstalled. Packages and dependencies are details that are not
> exposed at all to users of GNOME Software.
> > If it is necessary to modify every package which a metapackage depends
> > on how is this work being tracked?
> Nothing is tracking this. I am making sure that the AppStream metadata
> is in place and set correctly for ubuntu-desktop only. The apps that
> are depends of ubuntu-desktop are gnome-control-center, nautilus,
> software-properties-gtk, update-manager, and yelp. Recommends are not
> a problem as they can be removed without removing the metapackage.
> (I have also removed the compulsory-for-GNOME tag from epiphany and totem.)
> This has been an issue since Ubuntu 16.04 LTS but it wasn't a big
> enough priority to anyone to fix until now.
> I wasn't planning on backporting this to 16.04 but it could be done by
I am concerned about the model here by which individual packages need to add
blobs of metadata on the filesystem to declare themselves "not for removal".
This is completely disconnected from the existing logic for managing
metapackages, which is expressed through the central Packages files and
apt's logic for metapackage dependencies.
Why is GNOME Software removing dependencies of packages /at all/? Why are
the decisions about dependency removal not being delegated to apt, instead
of being reimplemented poorly?
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/