Re: Technical Committee: decision on #119517?
So, let me see if I can summarise the core of the dispute:
* Manoj feels that a $PATH executable, ie a shell command, failing
with a run-time linker missing library error (or indeed other startup
failures of a shell command) is a different kind of problem to a
non-working command-line option, menu option, command to a program's
built-in CLI, etc.
* Manoj feels that these errors are sufficiently bad that they should
never happen without a forced or broken Depends.
* Everyone agrees that in some circumstances the best answer can be to
have non-working command-line options, menu options, etc., when only a
Recommends or Suggests is violated and not necessarily a Depends.
* AJ and I think that there is no important difference in this context
between an executable not working and (for example) a command line
option or menu option not working.
* AJ and I therefore feel that these errors, while not ideal, are
tolerable with only violated Recommends or Suggests, if there are
other factors involved which make it a good idea (such as wanting to
avoid creating an otherwise-pointless trivial package fragment).
Manoj, have I represented you fairly and accurately ? Is there
anything else you think you wanted to say ?
Does anyone else have anything to say ?
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com