Created attachment 339659 [details] Suggested fix kdeutils-printer-applet has quite a dependency chain for nothing on systems that have no need for printing stuff: ================================================================================ Package Arch Version Repository Size ================================================================================ Installing: kdeutils-printer-applet x86_64 6:4.2.2-2.fc10 updates-testing 33 k Installing for dependencies: PyKDE4 x86_64 4.2.2-2.fc10 updates-testing 4.8 M PyQt4 x86_64 4.4.4-5.fc10 updates 3.2 M foomatic x86_64 3.0.2-70.fc10 updates 19 M hal-cups-utils x86_64 0.6.19-1.fc10 updates 41 k sip x86_64 4.7.9-1.fc10 updates 240 k system-config-printer-libs x86_64 1.0.16-2.fc10 updates 903 k Transaction Summary ================================================================================ Install 7 Package(s) Update 0 Package(s) Remove 0 Package(s) Total download size: 28 M I think the "don't disappear on upgrades" intention can be taken care of less intrusively, see attached (untested) patch against Rawhide.
it's fixed in 4.2.2-3
Not sure I like this, now the bloat is the other way around. Now, kdeutils-printer-applet needlessly Requires: kdeutils
I guess there's suckage either way, depends on which case is least bad: kdeutils Requires: -printer-applet or -printer-applet Requires: kdeutils ie, which is the more significant use case: having kdeutils installed without wanting -printer-applet having -printer-applet installed without kdeutils The more I think about it, maybe the former (status-quo) is indeed preferable, but I'd like to hear other's thoughts on the matter.
We could also consider dropping the requires (esp for f11), and let comps handle it.
It should be added that the printer applet has been shipped in kdeutils since the F10 release, so the dependency chain is not really new. Having printer stuff dragged in even when not using a printer is an old problem. I think we should keep F-9 and F-10 as they are now (i.e. revert them in CVS and not push the build) and just drop the Requires for F11+.
(In reply to comment #5) > It should be added that the printer applet has been shipped in kdeutils since > the F10 release, so the dependency chain is not really new. Well, it's new to me, I upgraded to F-10 a few weeks ago. Anyway, I already got annoyed by it when upgrading from F-9 to F-10, did a --nodeps install of kdeutils to "fix" it then, and just ran into it again when upgrading stuff from F-10 updates-testing, this time got around to reporting it. > Having printer > stuff dragged in even when not using a printer is an old problem. Yep, and one that I thought was already a thing of the past until this incident occurred, I hadn't run into it in quite a long time. > I think we should keep F-9 and F-10 as they are now (i.e. revert them in CVS > and not push the build) and just drop the Requires for F11+. Not sure which Requires you mean, but if the one added by the patch I posted: note that if that Requires is dropped, the Obsoletes should go too. Only if they're both there the desirable kdeutils -> kdeutils+kdeutils-printer-applet upgrade scenario happens. If the Requires is dropped and Obsoletes kept, it becomes kdeutils -> kdeutils-printer-applet (kdeutils gets lost on upgrade). If on the other hand you mean dropping the original Requires: kdeutils-printer-applet in kdeutils that was there before my patch, I think that'd be an ok approach for F-11+.
Yes, I mean dropping the original Requires, i.e. having kdeutils and kdeutils-printer-applet neither require nor obsolete each other in F11.
>I guess there's suckage either way, depends on which case is least bad: >kdeutils Requires: -printer-applet >or >-printer-applet Requires: kdeutils >ie, which is the more significant use case: >having kdeutils installed without wanting -printer-applet >having -printer-applet installed without kdeutils we should revert the change for F9/f10 so that printer-applet will be installed by upgrade. >We could also consider dropping the requires (esp for f11), and let comps >handle it. yes, For F11, we dropp the original Requires and just let comps handle it any objection?
re: comment #8 +1 , I think we're all in agreement here.