Re: Bug#30739: When a tiny part of a package uses non-free libraries
john@dhh.gt.org wrote:
> Rob Browning writes:
> > I haven't thought about this alot, but I really tend to think that
> > *any* executable in the standard PATH should, after a successful
> > installation, always be expected to work. I guess I assumed that this
> > was already policy.
>
> I agree. If this isn't policy it should be.
Perhaps you didn't see a post of mine on the subject (I'll edit
it down a bit):
--
Earlier, I wrote:
> As Michael Meskes has since posted, the problem appears to be a
> very different interpretation of what dependencies mean. I guess
> policy needs to be clarified in this respect (because I wasn't
> the only one to have a different interpretation than Michael).
Well, as much as I _hate_ this:
http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/packaging.html/ch-relationships.html#8
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.
I wrote:
> I liked to point out [to people] that Debian dependencies make sure
> that every installed binary works, but Michael's interpretation
> of the dependencies (if he's correct) means that this is not
> true.
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.
Peter <psg@debian.org>
Reply to: