Re: alternative dependency ordering - with respect of packages in main
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 01:12:37PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Policy is clear on packages in main aren't allowed to depend on
> packages outside of main. Now in a fair amount of cases this has been
> worked around by having the package outside of main as alternative
> dependency and a package in main offer basic functionality for the
> package to still be able to work.
>
> I know that the buildd system likes to pull in the first package in
> such an alternative dependency chain. And now I start to wonder:
>
> Is it allowed for a package in main to have a package _outside_ of main
> as first component of an alternative dependency? The package in
> question is extremely unlikely to ever be used as Build-Depends, so this
> is of a more general question.
>
> What also might be used as argument is the social contract, DFSG #4:
> "Our priorities are our users and free software" -- it can be argued
> that we don't put the priority on free software in such a case.
>
> tl;dr - what do you think, is a "Depends: foo-contrib | foo" acceptable
> for packages in main or should it be "Depends: foo | foo-contrib"
> instead?
Policy 2.2.1 forbid both usages: it says:
the package must not declare a "Depends", "Recommends", or "Build-Depends"
relationship on a non-_main_ package
Nowhere in policy there is an indication that the first alternative is special.
I suggest that foo-contrib Provides: foo instead.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
Reply to: