Hi, Quoting Julian Andres Klode (2023-06-14 18:00:42) > This allows users to customize their systems and avoid installing recommends > they don't want. I do not see a reasonable cost/benefit ratio here. There is a surprising amount of software in our archive that tries to parse the package relationship fields. Anybody who wants to change the syntax of these fields has to be prepared to send patches to all of these software packages. This was not fun when I did the implementation for build profiles. And there is more software handling binary packages than software handling source packages. So there is a huge cost to implement this properly in all the tools that need to be able to understand this. What is the benefit? When I implemented the build profile syntax, profiles were the only way forward to make packages cross-buildable without hacks. So having them was a necessity and it made the huge workload reasonable. What is the benefit of your proposal? That now your system may require a few hundred MB less disk space because you maybe have less packages installed? Is this worth the hassle? Will somebody who worries about disk space that much not rather turn off installing recommends by default? And how many packages will make use of this? Once we have an idea of that, what will be the space savings on user's systems? Are you prepared to do the work? It will be a lot. Thanks! cheers, josch
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature