How shall I report a bug in the .deb packaging itself?

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 00:35:25 +0000, Robie Basak wrote:
>On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 03:08:51PM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
>> I'll repeat this one last time for you: If A suggests B, and you
>> install B in some way, you may have come to rely on the fact that A
>> is extended by B on your system. Automatically removing B could thus
>> cause an unexpected loss of functionality.  
>
>I understand your logic here. But doesn't the same logic apply to
>Depends? If B depends on A and you install B in some way, then you may
>have come to reply on the fact that A is extended by B on your system,
>etc.
>
>I had always assumed that this is the risk you take by using autoremove
>and thus you need to pay attention to what you autoremove, which is for
>example why unattended-upgrades is sensible by not doing it by default.
>
>What makes Recommends and Suggests special?

They are optional dependencies. Software can run without optional
dependencies, just some options are missing if those dependencies
aren't installed. Hard dependencies are dependencies that are needed by
the software.

Recommended and suggested dependencies are Debian/Ubuntu terms for
optional dependencies. The default is that recommended dependencies are
automatically installed too and suggested dependencies are not
automatically installed.

There is something else to consider regarding upgrades, the difference
between upgrade (under no circumstances are currently installed
packages removed, nor are packages that are not already installed
retrieved and installed) and dist-upgrade (a "smart" conflict
resolution system, and it will attempt to upgrade the most important
packages at the expense of less important ones, if necessary).

However, claims to make it more user-friendly for some so called
"averaged" user are hard to fulfil, solutions always need to be
solutions based on the common ground. User-friendly doesn't mean that a
non restricted free operating system could be used without a learning
curve or without any self-responsibility.

Even if the package management would be able to read the mind of a
user, it only could do what's in the mind of the user.

The package management is unable to read the mind, but a user can
configure the package management not to use the defaults. The defaults
of Ubuntu try to fit to what is common ground of "averaged" users.

Somebody already pointed out, the only enhancement could be an undo
option based on the package management's log (history), but that could
become very tricky. I bet it will cause more trouble, than enhance
user-friendliness.
-- 
http://www.grundgesetz-gratis.de/