(sorry, first reply was sent privately, doing again to include list)
Seems like you may have not considered the translations angle, so let me spin it another way...

If I adjusted where translations are packaged (put with -libs), so that the base 'exiv2' package was < 1mb (~200k uncompressed), would we still be having this conversation?

On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 10:10 AM Vít Ondruch <vondruch@redhat.com> wrote:

1) I am sure I never had any need to use the exiv2 executable and I would be surprised if majority of Fedora users had different experience

2) I don't understand what else then space saving and e.g. optimization of install media should be the reason for the split.

But given that the split as well as the recommends are correct, then I'll probably ask to remove the `exiv2` from the install media via kickstart or whatever is the right way to customize the install media content.


Vít


Dne 13. 07. 23 v 15:45 Rex Dieter napsal(a):
I don't see any good reason to change here.  Mostly because the status quo is already a compromise to leave the base package as an optional Recommends (ie, removable).

This is considering that most of the space in question here are translations, that strictly-speaking, probably ought to be included in the -libs package anyway.  if those files were moved, the space saving for the base package would be negligible.

On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 7:42 AM Vít Ondruch <vondruch@redhat.com> wrote:
(now hopefully with correct maintainer email)


Dne 13. 07. 23 v 14:38 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
>
> Dne 10. 07. 23 v 10:38 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
>>
>> exiv2
>>
>>
>
> So this is pulled in by exiv2-libs:
>
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/exiv2/blob/rawhide/f/exiv2.spec#_53-58
>
> I am not sure I agree with the comment `# not strictly required, but
> convenient and expected`. But I think dependencies like this should be
> reevaluated at least in the install media context. This would save 4+
> MB of space.
>
> Or is the exiv2 maintainer (in CC) going to revisit this dependency?
>
>
> Vít
>