does mc really require perl*?
ibmalone at gmail.com
Wed Sep 11 09:36:00 UTC 2013
On 11 September 2013 08:05, Miroslav Suchý <msuchy at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 09/10/2013 08:25 AM, Dan Horák wrote:
>>> >I did a TC5 minimal install last night, which omitted mc, my most
>>> >used cmdline tool. So:
>>> ># yum install mc
>>> >... installing for dependencies:
>>> >gpm-libs (which I never ever use)
>>> >perl* (29 packages)...
>>> >Seriously? What does mc need perl for?
>> see /usr/libexec/mc/extfs.d
> So unless you try to open deb, rpm package and few other format you do not
> need perl.
> So it is merely nice-to-have. Usually called soft-dependency, which
> unfortunately our tools still does not know.
> Does somebody knows when we can expect soft dependencies in rpm?
Can someone explain what the consequences of a 'soft dependency' would
actually be and how it would be different from putting those files
into a sub-package? (Which may or may not work depending on whether mc
is able to cope dynamically with that.)
Because when we saw a similar discussion on the user list a while ago
it seemed that people expected it to simply know that they wouldn't
need feature X of package Y and therefore magically leave it out but
still have the application run successfully.
More information about the devel