Re: [RFC] Changing APT to pre-depend on ${shlibs:Depends}
On Thu, 2011-05-19 at 13:28 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Julian Andres Klode writes ("Re: [RFC] Changing APT to pre-depend on ${shlibs:Depends}"):
> > So we'd need one supporter now to speak up in order to get a neutral
> > level again.
>
> The purpose of the policy rule asking for consensus here is to not to
> count people on one side or the other. We don't have developers vote
> on technical questions (much less count people on each side in an
> informal mailing list discussion).
>
> The purpose is to make sure that we have considered all the up- and
> down-sides of the proposal, and specifically to make sure that if
> there are things that are going to go wrong we discover them sooner
> rather than later.
Basically yes, but I like to have an overview of the opinions as well
while collecting reasons.
> In the first instance the maintainers are the persons who will decide
> whether the consensus favours the proposal. So I suggest that people
> who think the proposal is a bad idea concentrate on producing good
> reasons which will persuade the maintainers.
We basically know the reasons on both sides. Most objections are of
social nature (fear of "APT has a Pre-Depends, let's add one to"), and
Eugene thinks it is unfair if APT were to pre-depend on things while
Cupt would not, ignoring the differences in numbers of users and
priority (important vs optional).
--
Julian Andres Klode - Debian Developer, Ubuntu Member
See http://wiki.debian.org/JulianAndresKlode and http://jak-linux.org/.
Reply to: