On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 19:18:19 +0200 Rene Engelhard <rene@debian.org> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 06:15:41PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote: > > The bug report doesn't explain why this needs to be a Depends: > > either - it could be a Recommends AFAICT. To quote the report, > > "which for some stuff needs...." - the definition of a Recommends > > in my book. If > > "some stuff" in the sense "I don't know what exactly needs it, > but it needs it". Umm, then some testing could be in order?? > > packageA is more than slightly usable without packageB being > > unpacked, there is no need for a Depends:, it should be a > > Recommends. > > And that is the problem. It opens the .so, no matter what you want. How does that explain why the lib depends on the binary? Why cannot the "glue" be put into a new package? (If it's unversioned, how are transitions meant to be handled?) > Of course, unless the CLI policy gets in some way changed or someone > tells me a better way... Well some definite information and test results would be helpful. So far, the only data in the bug report or on this list is too vague for anyone to offer a solution - whether they know the package or not. "some stuff", "I don't know what exactly needs it," and "glue" are not helpful assessments which would encourage anyone to offer a reasoned solution. You know the package, I don't - please, help others help you by putting some real usable data into the bug report. Which symbols, which executables, which circumstances, which files? Exactly where is the breakage? -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/
Attachment:
pgpQwXGYJQPKZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature