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

Re: optional packages which depend on extra packages

I'm basically forwarding this to the debian-cd list - I haven't watched

To the list: Please check the packages Santiago mentioned and try to
ensure that packages on the first cd doesn't depend on the ones on
the second cd.



Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Feb 1999, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > Package A (optional) depends on package B (extra). This is not allowed by
> > > policy so either A is downgraded to extra or B upgraded to optional.
> > > 
> > > The suggestions I made were of this type:
> > > 
> > > "In this case I suggest that A is downgraded" or
> > > "In this case I suggest that B is upgraded".
> > > 
> > > It is not unusual for a bug report to suggest a possible fix, and in no
> > > way it means it has to be the "only" fix, but if you prefer a more
> > > "neutral" report, feel free to close these bugs and I will report them in
> > > a more neutral way (without any suggestions).
> > 
> > So both the ftp maintainers and the package maintainers need to be
> > contacted individually.  Since this is "only" a policy breakage it
> > isn't release critical.
> Please note that, if I'm not mistaken, most extra packages will be placed
> in the second slink CD-ROM.
> Having an optional package in the first CD-ROM which depends on a package
> on the second CD-ROM is something undesirable and ugly, at least.
> I'm not saying this bug should be "priority: important", but our users
> will complain if we release slink with many wrong priorities.

Those who don't understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.

Reply to: