xserver-xorg rdepends

xserver-xorg rdepends

[Phil Blundell]

I discovered today that xorg-xserver-common.inc has:

RDEPENDS_${PN} = "hal"

which seems a bit undesirable.  I propose to remove this hard-wired
dependency; any DISTRO who wants to keep it can specify that in their
own config file.

Any objections?

p.

Re: xserver-xorg rdepends

[Koen Kooi]

On 16-10-2008 21:19, Phil Blundell wrote:
> I discovered today that xorg-xserver-common.inc has:
>
> RDEPENDS_${PN} = "hal"
>
> which seems a bit undesirable.  I propose to remove this hard-wired
> dependency; any DISTRO who wants to keep it can specify that in their
> own config file.
>
> Any objections?

Yes. Recent xservers need hal for various input systems to work 
correctly. So instead of crippling the xserver you can keep a crippled 
version in your personal tree or overlay.

The rdepends is there because someone has split out libhal main hal 
package, having hal dependant apps break for not being able to contact 
the hal daemon.

Re: xserver-xorg rdepends

[Otavio Salvador]

Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl> writes:

>> Any objections?
>
> Yes. Recent xservers need hal for various input systems to work
> correctly. So instead of crippling the xserver you can keep a crippled
> version in your personal tree or overlay.

Fully support to keep hal as rdepends.

-- 
        O T A V I O    S A L V A D O R
---------------------------------------------
 E-mail: otavio@debian.org      UIN: 5906116
 GNU/Linux User: 239058     GPG ID: 49A5F855
 Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br
---------------------------------------------
"Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives
 you the whole house."

Re: xserver-xorg rdepends

[Koen Kooi]

On 16-10-2008 22:02, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Koen Kooi<k.kooi@student.utwente.nl>  writes:
>
>>> Any objections?
>> Yes. Recent xservers need hal for various input systems to work
>> correctly. So instead of crippling the xserver you can keep a crippled
>> version in your personal tree or overlay.
>
> Fully support to keep hal as rdepends.

Thinking about it some more, we should turn back the libhal split, so 
every hal apps works, instead of adding rdepends when we encounter 
broken apps.

regards,

Koen

PS: how can I merge your xfce work into .dev? The git phrasebook isn't 
really clear on that.

Re: xserver-xorg rdepends

[Otavio Salvador]

Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl> writes:

>>> Yes. Recent xservers need hal for various input systems to work
>>> correctly. So instead of crippling the xserver you can keep a crippled
>>> version in your personal tree or overlay.
>>
>> Fully support to keep hal as rdepends.
>
> Thinking about it some more, we should turn back the libhal split, so
> every hal apps works, instead of adding rdepends when we encounter
> broken apps.

Personally I disagree with you. Even though few applications can still
not work without the hal rdepends, some uses hal but not in a really
non dependant way and the split allows a finner selection where to
include or not it.

This allows also distros to select and change it by package.

> PS: how can I merge your xfce work into .dev? The git phrasebook isn't
> really clear on that.

I'm rebasing the branch against final repository and I'll send a
patchset for acking here before pushing it. I guess I can send those
patches later today and push it tomorrow if someone acks it before
that.

My idea is to split the patches in:

 - xfce-refactor-branch

   where the inc files are droped and the packaging improved

 - xfce-4.2-branch

   new version

There're also a number of fixes that I'll be sending here for review
and pushing together. 

-- 
        O T A V I O    S A L V A D O R
---------------------------------------------
 E-mail: otavio@debian.org      UIN: 5906116
 GNU/Linux User: 239058     GPG ID: 49A5F855
 Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br
---------------------------------------------
"Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives
 you the whole house."

Re: xserver-xorg rdepends

[Phil Blundell]

On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 17:02 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl> writes:
> 
> >> Any objections?
> >
> > Yes. Recent xservers need hal for various input systems to work
> > correctly. So instead of crippling the xserver you can keep a crippled
> > version in your personal tree or overlay.
> 
> Fully support to keep hal as rdepends.

This seems like an odd point of view.  There are various other things
that the xserver requires for full operation (fonts, video drivers and
other modules for example), none of which are listed in RDEPENDS.  It
isn't obvious to me that hal is any more important than those.

Historically, the general policy for RDEPENDS has been that it should
list only those packages which are absolutely required for the software
in question to do anything useful.  For example, shared libraries
without which you can't run the binary at all; interpreters without
which you can't invoke the script; supporting datafiles without which
the program will immediately crash, that kind of thing.  If the program
can run and do at least something useful without a given package being
installed, we have not usually considered it to be a hard dependency.
These kinds of "soft dependencies" have traditionally been a matter of
DISTRO and/or MACHINE policy, being handled either through task
packages, PACKAGE_INSTALL, RRECOMMENDS, or some similar mechanism.

p.

Re: xserver-xorg rdepends

[Otavio Salvador]

Phil Blundell <pb@reciva.com> writes:

> On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 17:02 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl> writes:
>> 
>> >> Any objections?
>> >
>> > Yes. Recent xservers need hal for various input systems to work
>> > correctly. So instead of crippling the xserver you can keep a crippled
>> > version in your personal tree or overlay.
>> 
>> Fully support to keep hal as rdepends.
>
> This seems like an odd point of view.  There are various other things
> that the xserver requires for full operation (fonts, video drivers and
> other modules for example), none of which are listed in RDEPENDS.  It
> isn't obvious to me that hal is any more important than those.

Point taken!

Yes your argument changed my mind and I support the removal. This
looks more logical to use same criterion for those packages.

+1

-- 
        O T A V I O    S A L V A D O R
---------------------------------------------
 E-mail: otavio@debian.org      UIN: 5906116
 GNU/Linux User: 239058     GPG ID: 49A5F855
 Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br
---------------------------------------------
"Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives
 you the whole house."

Re: xserver-xorg rdepends

[Michael 'Mickey' Lauer]

Phil wrote:
> Historically, the general policy for RDEPENDS has been that it should
> list only those packages which are absolutely required for the software
> in question to do anything useful.  For example, shared libraries
> without which you can't run the binary at all; interpreters without
> which you can't invoke the script; supporting datafiles without which
> the program will immediately crash, that kind of thing.  If the program
> can run and do at least something useful without a given package being
> installed, we have not usually considered it to be a hard dependency.
> These kinds of "soft dependencies" have traditionally been a matter of
> DISTRO and/or MACHINE policy, being handled either through task
> packages, PACKAGE_INSTALL, RRECOMMENDS, or some similar mechanism.

I agree. Consider this a vote for turning this into a RRECOMMENDS or dropping 
it completely.

-- 
:M:

Re: xserver-xorg rdepends

[Koen Kooi]

On 17-10-2008 17:55, Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote:
> Phil wrote:
>> Historically, the general policy for RDEPENDS has been that it should
>> list only those packages which are absolutely required for the software
>> in question to do anything useful.  For example, shared libraries
>> without which you can't run the binary at all; interpreters without
>> which you can't invoke the script; supporting datafiles without which
>> the program will immediately crash, that kind of thing.  If the program
>> can run and do at least something useful without a given package being
>> installed, we have not usually considered it to be a hard dependency.
>> These kinds of "soft dependencies" have traditionally been a matter of
>> DISTRO and/or MACHINE policy, being handled either through task
>> packages, PACKAGE_INSTALL, RRECOMMENDS, or some similar mechanism.
>
> I agree. Consider this a vote for turning this into a RRECOMMENDS or dropping
> it completely.

You're a bit behind the times :)

http://gitweb.openembedded.net/?p=openembedded.git;a=commit;h=ada680d9ac7180986f600f223b6ec01c7796dff8

Re: xserver-xorg rdepends

[Michael 'Mickey' Lauer]

Am Friday 17 October 2008 19:09:04 schrieb Koen Kooi:
> On 17-10-2008 17:55, Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote:
> > Phil wrote:
> >> Historically, the general policy for RDEPENDS has been that it should
> >> list only those packages which are absolutely required for the software
> >> in question to do anything useful.  For example, shared libraries
> >> without which you can't run the binary at all; interpreters without
> >> which you can't invoke the script; supporting datafiles without which
> >> the program will immediately crash, that kind of thing.  If the program
> >> can run and do at least something useful without a given package being
> >> installed, we have not usually considered it to be a hard dependency.
> >> These kinds of "soft dependencies" have traditionally been a matter of
> >> DISTRO and/or MACHINE policy, being handled either through task
> >> packages, PACKAGE_INSTALL, RRECOMMENDS, or some similar mechanism.
> >
> > I agree. Consider this a vote for turning this into a RRECOMMENDS or
> > dropping it completely.
>
> You're a bit behind the times :)

Heh, thanks for confirming, I've built up a massive backlog :)

-- 
:M: