On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 07:38:07AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 01:55:57PM +1200, Daniel Reurich wrote:
> > Why are we dragging up a thread from over a year ago??
> >
> > I strongly disagree, installing "Recommends" are IMHO reasonable for the
> > common case, and that should stay the default except where the user
> > wants to maintain a really minimal system, and is prepared to have to
> > install everything not an explicit hard dependency.
>
> A thousand times this. "Recommends" are meant for _most_ users, not for a
> minority who feels an urge to micromanage their systems. And let's say what
> the policy says:
>

> # `Recommends'
> #     This declares a strong, but not absolute, dependency.
> #
> #     The `Recommends' field should list packages that would be found
> #     together with this one in all but unusual installations.

>
> With this definition at hand, we can see why you're unhappy.
>
> It might be that:
> * you're unusual (like, a compulsive desire to remove all perceived bloat)
> * your needs are unusual (deeply embedded, etc)
> * the Recommends is in error
>
> If it's the last, please file a bug. Either in Devuan, or, preferably in
> cases not related to systemd, in Debian.

A case in point is asciidoc. It's used to generate HTML pages and
books. To do books it recommends other sofftware that takes about a
gigabyte on disk. Now the Docbook stuff and the LaTeX stuff are
necessary for producing books (i.e., printable pdf's) but if you're
planning on using it to generate web pages it's a real surprise
when all that stuff gets hauled in.

Ideally aptitude should report why a particular package is recommended.
If that were merely part of therrecommending package's multiline blurb
(which aptitude does display onrrquest), that would be enough for the
intelligent user to make a decision.

-- hendrik