Bad recommended package lists

[Francois Gouget]

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Marcus Meissner wrote:
[...]
> > Here's a list of the suspicious or downright bad package 
> > recommendations I spotted:
> 
> Quite a number of them seems just be indirect dependencies, except perhaps
> isdn4k-utils.

But do we care about indirect dependencies?
We shouldn't have to update the list every time the dependencies of 
one of these packages changes. Besides, isn't the RPM package dependency 
problem solved these days?


> In the openSUSE buildservice I have for Fedora:
> 
> audiofile cups-devel fontforge freeglut-devel libpng-devel libtiff-devel
> libxslt-devel prelink libgphoto2 libxml2-devel pkgconfig libjpeg-devel
> audiofile-devel bison flex ncurses-devel openssl-devel openldap-devel
> libicu-devel lcms-devel freetype-devel isdn4k-utils-devel alsa-lib-devel
> hal-devel libX11-devel libXext-devel imake xorg-x11-utils libXt-devel
> libXrandr-devel libXrender-devel libXinerama-devel libXi-devel
> fontconfig-devel libXcomposite-devel libXcursor-devel libXxf86vm-devel
> xorg-x11-proto-devel xorg-x11-xtrans-devel
> 
> But even these might be too many ;)

Yes. At first glance I'd say audiofile, freeglut-devel, libtiff-devel, 
prelink (or maybe at the RPM package level), audiofile-devel, 
libicu-devel (not used anymore), imake.

Stefaniuc also reminded me on IRC that fontforge is not really needed 
anymore now. We should either put it in an optional dependencies list or 
remove it altogether.


-- 
Francois Gouget <fgouget at free.fr>              http://fgouget.free.fr/
In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice they're different.