Dependency Champion

[DB]

fedora-list-request at redhat.com wrote:
> Message: 10
> Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 12:01:41 -0430
> From: "Patrick O'Callaghan" <pocallaghan at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: fedora-list Digest, Vol 57, Issue 47 Dependency Champion
> To: fedora-list at redhat.com
> Message-ID: <1226075501.3141.3.camel at bree.homelinux.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 16:48 +0100, DB wrote:
>   
>> > Having been bitten several times by Yum's ideas of "what depends on
>> > what", I agree with Henk.  If I have 2 (as far as I can see &
>> > understand) independent, stand-aloneable programs eg Cups & Firefox,
>> > it ought to be possible for me to remove either without automatically
>> > taking out the other - no, I've never even thought of the work that
>> > must go into something like that!!!!
>>     
> As Michael pointed out, this has absolutely nothing to do with Yum. 
> The packages were specified with certain dependencies and Yum is 
> simply following the spec. I'm sure you're not suggesting that Yum 
> should examine the packages and determine if X *really* depends on Y 
> ... BTW, if possible don't use Yahoo to reply. Its idea of message 
> threading (not to mention quoting) seems to be completely broken. poc
Hi POC,

OK... if Yum is a "dumb" servant, then the definers of dependencies 
maybe should look into how things are listed - IM*V*HO. Surely something 
**optional* *that I install after the initial set-up cannot become a 
dependency of something which is/was supposed to work without the 
(unrelated) optional bit???? Or as Yumex so kindly lists all wot it's 
going to kill off, could there not be a way of deselecting those 
elements that are "obviously" wrong??????

(Thanks for the hint on the reply -- I use Thunderbird as my mail 
manager & didn't do a very good job on cutting out the bits of the 
Digest I didn't want to quote - mea maxima culpa, not Yahoo's fault this 
time!)

TTFN

Dave