On Dec 9 17:35, Achim Gratz wrote:
Corinna Vinschen writes:
I still don't grok why everybody is so hot on keeping the base install
so very small. Our Base package set is really tiny in comparison
with any Linux distro. Perl is default on most of them. Why not
for us? Disk space is dirt cheap these days.
It's more like the additional complexity and growing attack surface of
an install with tools you don't regularly use. This discussion was (and
still is) going on for Linux just as well, only that the "more features
is better" camp has won.
I'm in the latter camp, too :)
The dependency resolution algorithm is in setup, not in upset, and
it doesn't belong there. setup.ini is regenerated every time a
package is updated. Who's going to do the manual inspection of the
results every time?
Only the leaf packages that are defined to be in Base should be in that
group, IMHO. The set of dependencies is going to change regardless, so
trying to chase them is pointless.
I see the point.
My concern is the useless "do you really want to install the following
dependencies?" dialog. It just doesn't make sense for the deps of
the Base category. Finding a neat solution which avoids this dialog
would be nice to have.
As I said, setup.exe could treat dependencies of a Base package as
explicitly requested for install, just as it does for Base itself. For
direct dependencies this isn't hard, following dependency chains this
way might require one more pass (unless we inject "Base" into the
dependencies we encounter).
Right. I was only pointing out what I was up to. Setup definitely
needs another tweak to support that.
Come to think of it. When exactly do we want to allow installing
packages without also installing the deps? How much sense does
this option really have?