[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#38212: debian-policy: [PROPOSAL] rewrite of section 5.7



On Tue, May 25, 1999 at 05:36:09PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
>  	  Such programs should be configured <em>with</em> X support,
> +	  and should declare a dependency on <tt>xlib6g</tt> (which
> +	  contains X shared libraries).  Users who wish to use the
> +	  program can install just the relatively small
> +	  <tt>xfree86-common</tt> and <tt>xlib6g</tt> packages, and do
> +	  not need to install the whole of X.</p>
> 
> I still fail to see why do I need xfree86-common to execute emacs or
> ghostview in console mode (as I always was able to do under Debian 2.0).

Because xlib6g depends on xfree86-common.

xlib6g also depends on libc6 (>= 2.1), but that was not mentioned in the
above paragraph.  The sentence "Users..." is explanatory, not a statement
of policy in and of itself.

If you read the sentence by itself, you will see that it has no bearing on
a package maintainer's decision at all.

"Users who wish to use the program can install just the relatively small
xfree86-common and xlib6g packages, and do not need to install the whole of
X."

The actual statement of policy is:

"Such programs should be configured with X support, and should declare a
dependency on xlib6g (which contains X shared libraries)."

This directive is unchanged from the previous version of section 5.7

So, let's get things out in the open.  Do you object to the proposal or
not?

> When I asked about xlib6g's new dependency on xfree86-common, people said
> "this is to avoid a lot of packages to depend on xfree86-common". Well,
> hiding real dependencies via indirect dependencies is not the way things
> are usually done in Debian.

Are you asserting that there is no dependency chain in Debian that is
deeper than one level?  I beg to differ.

> Which exactly is the problem which is intended to be solved by adding this
> dependency?

Read the package description of xfree86-common.

Do you object to the proposal?  Do you have an amendment for it?

-- 
G. Branden Robinson              |    I have a truly elegant proof of the
Debian GNU/Linux                 |    above, but it is too long to fit into
branden@ecn.purdue.edu           |    this .signature file.
cartoon.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ |

Attachment: pgpuqYTt4Jeu0.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: