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

Re: Trivial bug on apt-file (Was : Re: Development standards for unstable)

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... :-/


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: