| 1 |
begin quote |
| 2 |
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 09:15:07 +0200 |
| 3 |
Philippe Coulonges <cphil@×××××.net> wrote: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> I use a slightly different method. |
| 7 |
> I change the type in gnome-session to trash, then I destroy nautilus |
| 8 |
> and save my session. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> > Without that necessity, at least on my system, Nautilus never loads |
| 11 |
> > unless you order it to explicitly. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> It doesn't load, but I still have to compile frequently a big program |
| 14 |
> I don't use. And as I can see my machine ain't broke without it, I |
| 15 |
> would like to know what exactly cause the dependence. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> <TROLL>Maybe there's some good in the Debian "suggested" package type |
| 18 |
> of dependencies.</TROLL> |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
<INSIGHT> Maybe you shouldn't ask for a complete gnome |
| 22 |
installation?</INSIGHT> |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
since you don't -want- all of gnome, dont install it. install the parts |
| 25 |
you want and go ahead. if something brings in nautilus and youre deadly |
| 26 |
afraid of installing nautilus, perhaps try injecting nautilus, and check |
| 27 |
what the package thinks about it. if you want us to remove a dep on |
| 28 |
nautilus you'll have to prove that there aren't any binary differences |
| 29 |
between a package built with nautilus in the system, and one built |
| 30 |
without it. |
| 31 |
( That is, no dissapearing functionality nor any dissapearing |
| 32 |
executables ) |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
//Spider |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
begin .signature |
| 39 |
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature! |
| 40 |
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information. |
| 41 |
end |
Archives