Bug 971510 - Can't keep Firefox when removing fedora-bookmarks
Can't keep Firefox when removing fedora-bookmarks
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: fedora-bookmarks (Show other bugs)
19
x86_64 Linux
unspecified Severity low
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Gecko Maintainer
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2013-06-06 12:48 EDT by António
Modified: 2013-06-06 14:01 EDT (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-06-06 14:01:41 EDT
Type: Bug
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description António 2013-06-06 12:48:49 EDT
Description of problem:
Removing fedora-bookmarks package will remove Firefox. I don't need fedora-bookmarks but I still need Firefox.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
fedora-bookmark-15-2.fc19

How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Launch the "Software" application.
2. Find the "fedora-bookmarks" and mark it for removal.
3. Apply

Actual results:
I get warned that Firefox will be removed as well.

Expected results:
fedora-bookmarks is removed and I can continue to use firefox. As far as I know Firefox doesn't need fedora-bookmarks for anything.
Comment 1 Matthew Miller 2013-06-06 13:18:39 EDT
"fedora-bookmarks" isn't required directly -- instead, it provides "system-bookmarks", which is required by the firefox package. (Technically, of course, Firefox can live without, but we don't have a good mechanism for those kind of dependencies.)

So, if you want to have something else, make a small package which also provides system-bookmarks and install that instead.

Or if it's just a matter of cleanliness and not wanting things you don't need, I sympathize, but firefox is 32M -- while fedora-bookmarks is 3.8k.
Comment 2 António 2013-06-06 13:57:54 EDT
Ah, thanks for explaining, I think I understood.

Yes, I'll let the package be, it doesn't make a difference at all. It was just that I was surprised to find that there was some kind of dependency, so I filed a bug just in case.

Well, if there is no bug here, this report can be closed. (Or you can see it as a request for "a good mechanism for those kind of dependencies". I don't care but I don't mind.)
Comment 3 Matthew Miller 2013-06-06 14:01:41 EDT
I'll mark it closed. I think we're overall aware of the advantages and disadvantages of have a "soft" dependency mechanism. My personal approach is to really care about these things when they affect the low-level OS components but not worry so much in desktop-application land, where they're basically harmless (especially when it's a small bit of content, not even code).

Anyway, thanks for the report.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.