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

Re: [RFC] DEP-6: Meta-Package debian/control field

Daniel Burrows wrote:

> [..]
>   I actually would prefer a Meta-Depends sort of solution.  The
> "dependencies" we're talking about are really not package dependencies
> in the normal sense at all, and we shouldn't be confusing them with
> normal dependencies.  IMO, that basic conflation, while a convenient
> and expedient hack when it was introduced years ago, is the cause of
> our troubles.

Well, we (me and Luca Bruno (not kaeso, the other one)) decided not to use
Meta-Depends because that would've broken meta-packages installed with
$non_compliant_tool .

Other than this, we could carefully plan this change, so that we're sure
that before any metapackage uses this field, the Policy get changed and all
current tools support it.


 . ''`.   Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
 : :'  : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/
 `. `'`  GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://snipr.com/qa_page
   `-   2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174

Reply to: