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

Re: mtools

On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 06:24:05PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > If something supports X it should be compiled with X.  This means exactly
> > two packages (xlib6g and xfree86-common) are also required, but they're
> I beg to disagree. If the binary in question is not essantial for the
> package there should not be a Depends: but only a Suggest: or Recommends:
> And I think this certainly is the case with mtools. After all the only
> binary linked against xlib6g is a daemon that usually is not started at all.

That's fine, disagree all you want and get the policy changed..  =>
Suggestion is that you propose packages which CAN have X support or not
not by default and another package be created which creates an alternative
for the binary with one higher priority....  I suppose a diversion would
work but why?

Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org>             Debian GNU/Linux developer
GnuPG: 2048g/3F9C2A43 - 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC  44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3
PGP 2.6: 2048R/50BDA0ED - E8 D6 84 81 E3 A8 BB 77  8E E2 29 96 C9 44 5F BE
"They are both businesses - if you have given them enough money, I'm
sure they'll do whatever the hell you ask:->"
        -- David Welton

Attachment: pgpMYjgAXBrL4.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: