[HEADSUP] Base category

Corinna Vinschen corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com
Wed Dec 10 10:58:00 GMT 2014

On Dec 10 11:29, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> On 12/10/2014 10:54 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Dec  9 23:19, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> >>To me sounds wrong the concept, why we should hide this check to
> >>the users ?
> >>I have seen recently too many wrong dependencies pullings extra
> >>unnecessary packages. I prefer to have users that could note the
> >>issue and complain instead of installing "everything but the kitchen sink"
> >>behind their back.
> >
> >Did you (and Ken) get me wrong, by any chance?
> >
> >What I was trying to say is *not* to remove the dependency dialog.  What
> >I was trying to say is *only* to remove the check box in that dialog,
> >which allows to install the selected packages without their dependencies.
> >Just this check box.
> >
> >Such a check-box, or its equivalent on the command line, doesn't exist
> >in other installers either.  Giving the choice to install without the
> >dependencies is in 99% of the cases wrong.
> >
> >If you install package A on Fedora, the installer will tell you it has
> >to install packages B, C, and D, to fullfill the dependencies for A.
> >The choice you have is to install A, B, C and D, or nothing at all.
> >There's no choice to install package A alone, which is what this
> >check box allows.
> >
> >Again, the dialog itself is fine.  The choice to install without the
> >deps usually is not.  *Iff* it's fine, then only for users who know
> >what they are doing.
> >
> >As for the dialog itself, I just think it would make sense to fullfil
> >deps of Base packages automatically.  If the user chooses to install
> >other packages outside Base, and these packages have additional deps,
> >then *of course* the additional deps should show up in that dialog.
> >
> >Does that clarify what I mean?  I'm sorry if my original mail was
> >unclear.
> Hi Corinna,
> It is/was clear, but I still disagree.
> I do not see the advantage of such reduced or hidden option.

Hidden to the normal user for which ignoring deps would typically
result in a broken installation.  Visible to the knowledgable user.

> I used a lot of time the check box to avoid pulling
> unwanted/questionable dependencies (eg gcc-java pulling python3..).

Wouldn't it be better instead to discuss and then remove these
questionable deps as soon as you notice them?

> Last time I used RPM, it still allowed to force install
> ignoring dependency.

I was more talking about yum or KDE's Apper.  To ignore deps
in RPM you have to know and use the --nodeps option as well.


Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin-apps/attachments/20141210/9d9fc1f4/attachment.sig>

More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list