Bug#681419: Alternative main->non-free dependencies text
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:44:04PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 04:01:21PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > 8. The Technical Committee resolves that alternative dependencies of
> > the form "Depends: package-in-main | package-in-non-free"
> > constitute a non-release-critical violation of the policy
> > clause cited in point 1.
> >
> > 9. When it is necessary to provide a reference in a Depends or
> > Recommends from main to non-free, this should be done via a
> > neutrally named virtual package.
> >
> > 10. The Technical Committee requests that the policy editors make
> > an appropriate clarification to the policy documents.
>
> About point (9.), and considering the past discussion on the matter
> we've had with Colin [1], I suggest to expand it as follows:
>
> 9. When it is necessary to provide a reference in a Depends or
> Recommends from main to non-free, this should be done via a
> neutrally named virtual package. When depending on such a virtual
> package, other packages should specify a real package in main as
> the first alternative, e.g.
> "Depends: package-in-main | virtual-interface".
Yes, this is the main comment I have when reconciling Ian's version with
my option B. I suspect - without having checked - that what happened is
not so much that Ian intentionally dropped this, but that he took a part
of my original text without the amendments I made in response to your
previous comments [1]. I've taken the liberty of restoring similar text
[2].
[1] http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/debian-ctte.git;a=commitdiff;h=a4bb169a96c2a25f0b01b550179256e650b8f3fd
[2] http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/debian-ctte.git;a=commitdiff;h=923daf9aaa689e924f3cbd136fa1090b2db6fef7
> This might be paranoia on my side, but I'm really worried that, by not
> following the above best practice, we risk losing some explicit
> preferences for main packages that are currently expressed in the
> archive and effective during dependency resolution. I do realize that
> the most appropriate place where to document this would be the Policy,
> but I doubt it would hurt to mention it in the tech-ctte resolution;
> quite the contrary, IMHO.
I concur with this.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@debian.org]
Reply to: