On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 12:39:32 +0100
KatolaZ <katolaz@???> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 01:27:19PM +0200, Antony Stone wrote:
> > No chance of getting things like this reduced from "depends" to
> > "recommends", I suppose?
> >
>
> I asked the maintainer if he could do that, and he gently explained me
> that a bug in gconf didn't allow anything less than a Depends: (so a
> lesstif package has a Depends: on gconf because a GNOME-related goodie
> added by the Debian maintainer requires gconf, and gconf has a bug
> which does not allow to use the GNOME-related additional goodie if it
> is not already installed when the lesstif app gets installed. And we
> still think that this is not *TOTALLY* *SICK* o_O).

>
> He kindly promised he would have looked into that after stretch is
> out. The dependency was introduced in 2007.

Very good point. The Debian project was already drifting toward
disfunctionality back in 2007, when systemd was just a gleam in
poetterpuff's eye. As the originator and then-sub-maintainer of the
VimOutliner project, I had to help people with broken Debian package
manager installed VimOutliner software by having them uninstall and
then Linux-install our (upstream) software. The debianistas went so far
as to substitute the wrist-twisting, repetative motion inducing,
keyboard dependent "\\" for VimOutliner's trivial and lightning fast
",," mode-change key. Because some Debian policy toward Vim demanded it.

>
> The alternative solution would be to fork the package for Devuan, and
> add it to the pile.

The preceding alterative would certainly be ideal, if the manpower
existed. Absent such massive manpower, would it be possible to provide
fakeout packages gnome-whatever-faux, gnome-whatever2-faux, etc, which
would allow Gnome-infested programs to compile, but do nothing other
than write message "gnome-whatever-faux fcn whichever() called" to
stderr for debugging purposes?

> All this madness would have been unnecessary if
> the entanglement with GNOME had not been seen as a necessity by a lot
> of Debian maintainers.

What people need to be reminded of, over and over again, is that
dependencies aren't cheap. Upstreams, packagers and users need to be
continuously reminded not to insert dependencies unless the majority of
the dependent software is used and necessary, and continuously reminded
to prune existing dependencies, writing their own code to substitute
for minor features bestowed by gargantuan libraries. Each dependency
bestows the opportunity of compile failure, of packaging workarounds,
and of installing software the user/admin considers toxic. Much the
same as a shopper carefully weighs the price and value of an item
before buying, the upstream or packager must frugally screen each
temptation to include a dependency, "buying" only those dependencies
critical to the software's basic functionality, and too difficult to
custom-write in a timely manner.

Here's a heresy you can quote me on: Perhaps if a feature is too
difficult to code without depending on a big library, that feature
should not be built! Five or ten users calling for an obscure feature
doesn't provide an excuse for a major library inclusion.

People puff out their chests in wisdom as they mouth the words "don't
reinvent the wheel", but all too often these efficiency gurus can be
seen importing a whole wheel when all they need is one spoke nipple. A
repudiation of the universal call of "don't reinvent the wheel" needs
to be made, with the appropriate re-education.

SteveT

Steve Litt
June 2017 featured book: The Key to Everyday Excellence
http://www.troubleshooters.com/key