Re: optional packages which depend on extra packages
I'm basically forwarding this to the debian-cd list - I haven't watched
it.
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.
Regards,
Joey
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: