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

Re: Bug#30739: When a tiny part of a package uses non-free libraries

Brian Mays wrote:

> Peter S Galbraith <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca> wrote:
> >   When selecting which level of dependency to use you should consider
> >   how important the depended-on package is to the functionality of
> >   the one declaring the dependency. Some packages are composed of
> >   components of varying degrees of importance. Such a package should
> >   list using Depends the package(s) which are required by the more
> >   important components. The other components' requirements may be
> >   mentioned as Suggestions or Recommendations, as appropriate to the
> >   components' relative importance.
> >
> > Note that the above says nothing about a dependency which would
> > force something into contrib.  Perhaps this sounds harsh, but would
> > Michael _not_ have downgraded the libforms dependency to `suggests' if
> > libforms had been in main instead of non-free?
> I assume that you are really referring to me and not Michael, since I 
> am the maintainer of pcmcia-cs.  (Michael was simply expressing his 
> opinion.)  

Sorry about that.  Long thread.

>           Yes, I would have used "Suggests," and for the same reason 
> that fetchmail "Suggests" python.  The executable that requires the 
> other package is an extra feature and contributes nothing to the 
> essential operation of the package.

Good for you then.  I'd hate to see the other start happening and
changing the barrier between a minor binary and a not-so-minor
one, all for the sake of not going into contrib.  I hope you see
what I mean.

> > This means that he's correct and that what I always thought about
> > Debian packages is false:  Dependency _don't_ guarantee that every
> > installed binary will work.
> Yes.  And this is the source of the current confusion.

Man, what a thread.  At least I understand dependencies better,
specially as they apply to multi-component packages.

Peter <psg@debian.org>

Reply to: