Received: from mx1.tetrasec.net (mx1.tetrasec.net [74.117.190.25]) by nld3-dev1.alpinelinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EF52781B55 for <~alpine/devel@lists.alpinelinux.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 08:58:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx1.tetrasec.net (mail.local [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tetrasec.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E8669E26D8; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 08:58:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ncopa-desktop.copa.dup.pw (67.63.200.37.customer.cdi.no [37.200.63.67]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: alpine@tanael.org) by mx1.tetrasec.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5CEE29E259C; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 08:58:54 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 10:58:48 +0200 From: Natanael Copa To: Rasmus Thomsen Cc: albapompeo@gmail.com, me@cosmoborsky.com, ~alpine/devel@lists.alpinelinux.org Subject: Re: APKBUILD Optional/Recommended Dependencies Message-ID: <20190822105848.134628ff@ncopa-desktop.copa.dup.pw> References: <883dca1a-b7f3-6137-059d-f561ef22c126@cosmoborsky.com> <5d5c8583.1c69fb81.9691a.45e5SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.4 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-alpine-linux-musl) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 18:14:48 +0000 Rasmus Thomsen wrote: > Hello, > > > I don't think XFCE without icons is " broken ". It's just XFCE > > without icons. > > It does look very broken when you just see the "missing image" icons > to me, or at least not fully functional. > > > On the other hand having " recommend packages " to install together > > > with XFCE seems like " personal preference " to me. > > It's not personal preference, it's sane defaults (e.g. what upstream > tells us). > > > If there are so many users asking why there are no icons on their > > XFCE > install that just means the documentation is not effective. Because > information is there > https://wiki.alpinelinux.org/wiki/XFCE_Setup#Start_your_desktop > I'd rather work on documentation being more visible then on adding > controversial " optional dependencies " to lots of packages in the > APKBUILD itself. > > We just had another person asking on #alpine-linux :) > > I don't feel like the docs aren't effective, it's just that people > don't always consult the docs for something as simple as doing `apk > add` for their desktop. You could argue that they _should_ do that > which is fair I suppose, but if you go through the #alpine-linux logs > you'll notice that that just doesn't happen in practice :/ I wonder if we can solve this without modifying apk-tools. For example, we could have opinionated installer scripts. For example `setup-xfce` or `setup-desktop -e xfce` or similar. Which would apk add a working default which user can tweak afterwards. > > Just my opinion but I think the less stuff in APKBUILD the better > > for all. > > Fair enough, I like how minimal they are too because they're easy to > understand like that but recommendation/optional deps wouldn't > increase complexity much IMHO. The problem is way more complex than it seems. Maybe not in APKBUILDs but in apk's resolver. -nc