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

Re: Bug#1018146: correct multiarch for blends stuff?

Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> writes:
> Quoting Ole Streicher (2022-08-27 16:22:27)
>> Helmut Grohne <helmut@subdivi.de> writes:
>> > The essence of my argument was that the dependency tree has become
>> > irrelevant. Since britney does not look into Recommends and the
>> > dependency tree has become a recommendation tree, there aren't actually
>> > that many dependencies left. It's a fairly simple tree now (when
>> > disregarding recommends).
>> I think this contradicts Debian Policy 2.2.1:
>> | In addition, the packages in main
>> | 
>> | * must not require or recommend a package outside of main for
>> |   compilation or execution [...]
> I thought so in the past as well, but was corrected (sorry, long ago,
> cannot point to a reference): Packages that does not exist at all (in
> any section of the Debian archive for the same release of Debian) is not
> "outside" and therefore not what that passage refers to.

As said in my other mail: If this is the common understanding, then we
really should re-think our blends package framework and remove the
debian/control.stub stuff. We can also just make the final metapackage
relase after the freeze stops NEW processing.



Reply to: