Steve Greenland writes, > Hmm... I'd have said that a) was the preferred interpetation; if a > package foo is effectively useless with a Recommended item bar, then bar > should, in fact, be a Depends, even if foo will start without bar. I > tend to think of Recommends as "strong Suggests". Good point. Since I happen to maintain a foo (debram-data) and a bar (debram) which fit your formula, may I use them as an example? Debram's bulky architecture-independent data is split out into a separate debram-data binary to conserve archive space. With the split, only the small core debram binary needs separate compiling and storage for each architecture. The split has no other significant purpose; it is to conserve archive space. Normal users want to install debram and debram-data together: neither or both. The trouble is, if each binary Depended on the other, then at installation time which one would be configured first? Each binary package would demand that the other be configured first. In the example, debram Depends on debram-data while debram-data Recommends debram. In this way, the two binaries normally always go together to form a complete software installation, but debram-data is configured first. As a separate matter, debram Suggests debtags, because it is felt that most debram users would want debtags, too; but as debram is usable without debtags, this only a Suggests. > So it is likely that Policy does, in fact, need clarification, but I'd > expect long discussion about what the clarification should be. -- Thaddeus H. Black 508 Nellie's Cave Road Blacksburg, Virginia 24060, USA +1 540 961 0920, t@b-tk.org
Attachment:
pgpV_7IQwV6YH.pgp
Description: PGP signature