On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 10:39:01AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Charles Plessy wrote: > > dependancy on curl. However, declaring proper dependancies for the > > package is a "should", not a "must", so if a debian developper is free > > to creating uninstallable packages if he fancies this. Err, what? The RC issues for etch thing lists: Packages must include a "Depends:" line listing any other packages they require for operation, unless those packages are marked "Essential: yes". Packages must include a "Pre-Depends:" line listing any packages required by their preinst. so violating that is definitely RC. 3.5 of policy uses "must", not should. In apt-file's case, the maintainer is claiming the current dependencies are correct, aiui. > If you are going to violate a _should_ forever, you better be able to > provide a full, acceptable technical explanation for your reasons. And for > the sake of team work, that also means tagging a bug about the issue as > wontfix, and adding the explanation to the bug logs. Yes, this RC bug fetish is absurd; we should be spending our time on these "shoulds", because the "musts" are already fixed... :-/ Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature