Re: is it a bug to not depend on a library package needed for some binary?
On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 01:55:48AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <email@example.com> writes:
> > On Sun, Jul 17, 2005 at 12:46:03PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> If your examples are like B1 is a console program and B2 an X program
> >> and P doesn't want to pull in X for console users then splitting is
> >> the right thing to do. isdnutils would be example of having split due
> >> to this in the past.
> > Policy (11.8.1) says that you should only split your package into X and
> > non-X parts if it is higher priority than the X libraries (which are
> > optional). isdnutils doesn't seem to qualify.
> People with their small headless isdn routers didn't feel like
> installing X on them just to be able to install isdn-utils at all.
> Enough people wished for a split and it was done.
The previous version of 11.8.1 was a bit less forgiving (changed in
1999). Anyway you are not obligated to install X but only some
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>