Re: Bug#753620: wishlist: idl/gdl-written software
Sergio Gelato <Sergio.Gelato@astro.su.se> writes:
> * Оlе Ѕtrеісhеr [2014-07-04 14:45:14 +0200]:
>> Sylwester Arabas <email@example.com> writes:
>> > - should idlastro become a dependency of gdl?
>> GDL should be a requirement of the package(s).
> I'd vote for a simple Recommends:, to cater for those who want to use
> the packages in some other way (e.g., in conjunction with proprietary
In a Debian world, these packages only work with GDL, so GDL is required
(and not just recommended).
I worry a bit that otherwise GDL is just used as an excuse to ship
packages that require non-free software in main.
If these packages work with GDL: why should one use IDL then? And if
they don't: why should we put them into Debian?
>> Again: priority should be the use with GDL -- and only packages that
>> work with GDL can go into Debian (main); everything else would have
>> to go into contrib.
> And can be moved to main as GDL's feature coverage catches up.
> Yet one could argue, given GDL's goal of compatibility with IDL, that
> any unsupported feature is to be treated as a bug (usually in GDL)
> rather than as an argument for relegating the package to
> contrib. Should a test suite for a package in main have to be in
> contrib just because some tests are still failing?
If a package is unusable with GDL, or so buggy that it is not worth
using it without IDL, I would think that it has an RC bug, so it should
not make its way into Debian -- independently whether its the packages
or GDLs fault.
Why not first fix the problem in GDL, and then include the package in