<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=us-ascii" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 06/23/2009 06:42 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:h1rlp4$44l$1@ger.gmane.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">TK009 wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">As to the bug itself, I can not and will not speak for why it bothers
the OP. To answer your question though, it bothers me because I don't
want packages on my machine I don't need.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
If you need package XYZ and package XYZ needs package foo for whatever
reason, then you need package foo, even if it doesn't intuitively make
sense to you.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">As it is my machine that is reason enough.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
It's not, there's no rationale for removing small packages just because you
think you don't need them (when you actually do, see above).
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Size is irrelevant.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Huh? What harm is a package with a size in the KB range going to do? Just
leave it sitting there instead of wasting your and our time whining about a
dependency.
Kevin Kofler
</pre>
</blockquote>
I didn't whine but if that is how you took it, good for you. You missed
the point, so I wont bother explaining again. Let me decide how to use
my time, you've made it clear how you want to use yours.<br>
<br>
TK009<br>
</body>
</html>