nautilus depends on a lot of stuff via gvfs
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
dominik at greysector.net
Wed Dec 10 19:00:36 UTC 2008
On Wednesday, 10 December 2008 at 02:42, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 01:18 +0000, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>
> > >
> > > So my proposal is to split nautilus into nautilus-core, that will
> > > contains the content of the current nautilus package, and nautilus
> > > "meta" package that will contains all the dependencies plus dependency
> > > on nautilus-core. This solution will install all the deps as today, but
> > > leave the option to remove the unnecessary packages afterwards.
> > >
> > > Only 3 packages will be affected with this split
> > > nautilus-devel
> > > nautilus-python
> > > seahorse-plugins
> > > and they should be made to depend on nautilus-core instead of nautilus.
> > >
> > > I will file a bug with the proposed change to nautilus spec file.
> >
> > That's not workable. You'd probably rather rejigger the samba packages
> > so it's possible to use Samba in any appropriate environment without
> > dragging in the server, or the excessively big packages. You should do
> > the same for other dependencies.
> >
> > Removing functionality from nautilus as it is installed by default won't
> > fix that problem.
>
> Fwiw, I don't think it is a big problem to change things so that gvfs
> subpackages are pulled in by comps instead of by hard deps from
> nautilus, as long as they are all in the default install. I don't
> introducing a nautilus metapackage for this purpose is necessary or a
> good idea.
Why is it not a good idea? We're doing metapackages already and they seem
to be working out just fine (see git or R, just to give a couple of examples).
Regards,
R.
--
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list