On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 09:44:42AM -0500, Phillip Susi wrote: > On 2/22/2013 1:48 AM, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > No. Both situations are buggy and neither of them is acceptable in > > testing. > > [There are situations where we do knowingly introduce > > uninstallability to testing, but those are always short term and to > > "unblock" a greater problem such as a large transition. We'd rather > > never have to do so and it certainly shouldn't be expected to be a > > standard part of the transition for a particular package.] > So that leaves us with ntfs-3g needs to comply with 8.1 and place the > libs in a lib-SONAME package, or is just removing the -dev package > enough to qualify for the section 8 exemption? I'm not sure how you've arrived at this conclusion. Have you overlooked that the shlibs in the ntfs-3g package have been fixed by the maintainer in unstable (as commented in bug #700677)? It still doesn't comply with policy 8.1. But I think that's a policy bug and that this bug report should be referred over to the policy package; I don't see anything further here that needs the technical committee's involvement. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature