I am somewhat new to openSUSE, and I have been getting used to zypper. I am a previous Arch user, and I am used to getting packages with upstream default configurations. I have been using the --no-recommends flag when installing packages to reduce the extra things installed with packages. However, my favorite window manager: Awesome, is unnecessarily dependent on LightDM and the openSUSE branding (for awesome) packages. If I already have a display manager (in my case that is SDDM) then there should be absolutely no reason that (especially with --no-recommends) awesome should be dependent on this. The two projects are not dependent on each other in any way and even if the maintainer’s intent is to make sure the user has a display manager installed, if they already have one, installing another one should be avoided. Also, the openSUSE branding packages should not be installed when using --no-recommends, these branding packages are not necessary, an average user will get them, i should be able to avoid them if I choose, but they are a forced dependency that I cannot avoid.
No, it is not.
Again - no, it is not.
awesome requires some branding package. lightdm is required by awesome-branding-openSUSE, not by awesome. It is rather logical that on openSUSE package manager defaults to using *-branding-openSUSE packages. Just install awesome-branding-upstream and it will satisfy requirement for awesome branding.
And please, consider your posting style Long text without any paragraph breaks is rather hard to read, especially for non-native speakers. There is no visual separation between facts that you present and your assumptions or narratives, so the problem is buried somewhere in this long flow of text.
Alright, I apologize. I will be sure to follow this formatting advice going forward.
I still have one point to make: while yes, it is logical that zypper installs opensuse-branding packages, don’t you think that these should be considered recommended packages? And thus not installed when the flag is present?
All linux distributions have their own branding and default to it. Without any branding all distries would look nearly the same. So it is logical the the respective brand is used by default to distinguish between them…
Yes, but again, when using the flag --no-recommends,I don’t think that should matter.
If you believe that a distribution should not install respective branding by default, you need to file a bug report. Good luck with that.
Well I’d argue that an installation with --no-recommends is not a ‘default’ but I can tell you don’t care.
It rather seems that you don’t understand. A brand is not a recommendation. So if you don’t want that the packagers default to the openSUSE brand, you need to file a bugreport. And as already written by arvidjaar, awesome needs one brand package. Doesn’t matter of openSUSE or upstream. No brand no awesome.
ich@laptop:~> LC_ALL=C zypper se requires awesome
Loading repository data...
Reading installed packages...
S | Name | Summary | Type
--+------------------------------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+--------
| awesome | Configurable tiling and floating Window Manager | package
| awesome-branding-openSUSE | openSUSE Branding for awesome | package
| awesome-branding-upstream | Upstream Branding for awesome | package
| awesome-freedesktop | Desktop entries and menu for awesome | package
| awesome-shifty | Dynamic tagging library for awesome | package
| awesome-vicious | Vicious plugins for awesome | package
| fontawesome-fonts | Iconic font set | package
| fontawesome-fonts-web | Web files for font-awesome | package
| leechcraft-fenet-awesome | Awesome Window Manager integration for LeechCraft | package
| perl-Test-Requires | Checks to see if the module can be loaded | package
| perl-Test-Requires-Git | Check your test requirements against the available version of Git | package
| perl-Test-RequiresInternet | Easily test network connectivity | package
| python39-QtAwesome | FontAwesome icons in PyQt and PySide applications | package
| python310-QtAwesome | FontAwesome icons in PyQt and PySide applications | package
| python311-QtAwesome | FontAwesome icons in PyQt and PySide applications | package
| ruby3.2-rubygem-font-awesome-rails | an asset gemification of the font-awesome icon font library | package
| texlive-awesomebox | Draw admonition blocks in your documents, illustrated with FontAwesome icons | package
| texlive-awesomebox-doc | Documentation for texlive-awesomebox | package
| texlive-fontawesome | Font containing web-related icons | package
| texlive-fontawesome-doc | Documentation for texlive-fontawesome | package
| texlive-fontawesome-fonts | Severed fonts for texlive-fontawesome | package
| texlive-fontawesome5 | Font Awesome 5 with LaTeX support | package
| texlive-fontawesome5-doc | Documentation for texlive-fontawesome5 | package
| texlive-fontawesome5-fonts | Severed fonts for texlive-fontawesome5 | package
ich@laptop:~>
And if you don’t like that openSUSE packagers decided to provide an upstream and an openSUSE branding package, you also need to file a bug report. That’s the way how it is done under openSUSE (in opposite to Arch…).