[Pkg-xfce-devel] Bug#827104: Bug#827104: Recommends: obsolete package xfce4-volumed

[ian_bruce at mail.ru]

On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 12:45:23 +0200
Yves-Alexis Perez <corsac at debian.org> wrote:

>> xfce4-volumed doesn't seem to exist in Xfce 4.12, but the
>> xfce4-settings package still recommends it.
> 
> Indeed.

This situation is perfectly proper and correct, in your opinion?

>> This is especially bad, because xfce4-volumed then pulls in the
>> entire gstreamer0.10 set of packages, which are otherwise totally
>> unnecessary and obsolete.
> 
> I don't parse that actually. Either it pulls in volumed and then
> pulling gstreamer0.10 is fine, or it doesn't and the point is moot.

xfce4-settings does pull in xfce4-volumed, which does pull in
gstreamer0.10, whereas gstreamer1.0 is the current version.

Therefore 26MB of totally useless packages are installed, because of
what you claim is not a false dependency.


    # apt-get remove libgstreamer0.10-0
    Reading package lists... Done
    Building dependency tree       
    Reading state information... Done
    The following packages were automatically installed and are no longer required:
      libcdaudio1 libkeybinder0 libslv2-9
    Use 'apt autoremove' to remove them.
    The following packages will be REMOVED:
      gstreamer0.10-alsa* gstreamer0.10-chromaprint* gstreamer0.10-gconf*
      gstreamer0.10-gnomevfs* gstreamer0.10-nice* gstreamer0.10-plugins-bad*
      gstreamer0.10-plugins-base* gstreamer0.10-plugins-good* gstreamer0.10-pulseaudio*
      gstreamer0.10-x* libgstreamer-plugins-bad0.10-0* libgstreamer-plugins-base0.10-0*
      libgstreamer0.10-0*
    0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 13 to remove and 17 not upgraded.
    After this operation, 26.1 MB disk space will be freed.
    Do you want to continue? [Y/n] 


Whether or not this situation is "fine", is a matter of opinion. Of
course, the world could end tomorrow, and then this bug report, along
with all others, would be totally unnecessary.

>> Please remove this false dependency.
> 
> It's not a false dependency, it's just that the package has been
> removed and the dependency line not updated.

If a dependency on a currently non-existent package is "not false", then
I wonder what meaning you think the word has.

Again, do you think this situation is perfectly proper and correct? Do
you propose that it should persist indefinitely? Was it incorrect to
file a bug report describing it? After all, what's the purpose of filing
ANY bug reports; the final collapse of the universe will eventually
happen anyway, rendering the whole point moot, as you say.


-- Ian Bruce