Re: gnucash-docs 1.9.0-1 MIGRATED to testing
Steve Langasek <email@example.com> writes:
> I don't see anything broken in britney's handling of this package.
> gnucash-docs doesn't depend on gnucash, so this version of gnucash-docs is
> perfectly installable in testing right now -- it's just not co-installable
> with gnucash itself, which is not a requirement.
Hrm, I guess I see the logic here, though it seems like a better
solution could be found than:
> If the package shouldn't have been allowed to progress into testing without
> gnucash, the way to ensure this is by either opening a dummy serious bug on
> gnucash-docs or by making gnucash-docs depend on the corresponding version
> of gnucash instead of merely suggesting it.
A dependency would certainly be wrong, since it doesn't actually
depend. The point is that the documentation is inconsistent with the
old version of the program. Of course, a conflict is, strictly
speaking, also wrong.
Maybe what we need is a negative version of "Recommends", that is,
just as Conflicts is the negative version of Depends, perhaps we need
a way to say "it is recommended that you do *not* install X along with