[Pkg-xfce-devel] Bug#827104: Bug#827104: Bug#827104: Recommends: obsolete package xfce4-volumed
corsac at debian.org
Sun Jun 12 15:30:19 UTC 2016
On dim., 2016-06-12 at 04:21 -0700, ian_bruce at mail.ru wrote:
> 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
> 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-
> gstreamer0.10-x* libgstreamer-plugins-bad0.10-0* libgstreamer-plugins-
> 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.
I honestly don't know what you're talking about, and I frankly don't care.
This will be fixed in the next package upload anyway.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the Pkg-xfce-devel