Re: Too many Recommends (in particular on mail-transport-agent)
- Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 14:15:51 +0100
- From: Ian Jackson <ijackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Too many Recommends (in particular on mail-transport-agent)
Jeremy Bicha writes ("Re: Too many Recommends (in particular on mail-transport-agent)"):
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Ian Jackson
> <ijackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Before doing that, it would be wise to try to find the answer to the
> > key question which the TC will ask. Suppose A recommends B. In what
> > way, or in what circumstances, will A fail due to lack of B ?
> > In #849619 I don't see the answer to that question.
> On the other hand, to someone who doesn't know much about those
> packages, I don't see anything in that bug to explain why it's a
> problem for those other packages to be installed.
This thread is about the problem of Recommends bloat. This bloat
wastes download time and disk space; and it unnecessarily exposes
users to additional risks (of brokenness, and sometimes of security
It is not usually appropriate to respond to a question "why is this
Recommends" with "why is it a problem for this package to be
> By the way, if a package "fails", that sounds like a Depends
> relationship is needed not a Recommends.
No. Even if A usually fails without B, Recommends is more appropriate
than Depends if there are plausible ways to use A without B.
It does seem that some maintainers are unclear on these principles, or
their application; despite what seems to me to be very clear wording
in policy. So I think we need some examples. To work well they
should have a high profile and be authoritative, so that means taking
a couple of contested cases to the TC. Maybe #849619 would make a
good test case.
Ian Jackson <ijackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.