Re: loosing dependencies
>>>>> Ralf Treinen <treinen@free.fr> writes:
>> Currently, the `fortunes' package depends on either `fortune-mod' or
>> `fortune-min':
[...]
>> Does it make sense, provided that the fortune files may as well be
>> read by M-x fortune in Emacs, or even by a plain `less'?
> Probably not, it seems to me that you are right, and that this
> dependency should be relaxed.
ACK.
>> And more generally, does it make sense for a pure-data package to
>> have non-empty Depends:?
> I can imagine that there are cases in which data is really specific
> to a particular application, but that doesn't seem to be the case
> here.
But, well, one may probably find some uses for that data even
outside of that application? I hardly believe that there're
data that's completely useless without a particular application
or applications, be it icons, sounds, or LUTs for a particular
scientific code.
The only situation where I see it's appropriate for an
`Architecture: all' package to contain an another package in
it's `Depends:' is where the package also provides scripts which
require that other package to be run.
> Could you please file a bug report against the fortune package?
Done [1].
[1] http://bugs.debian.org/461651
Reply to: