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

Re: tech-ctte help needed: main dependencies on non-free/contrib

Eugene V. Lyubimkin writes ("Re: tech-ctte help needed: main dependencies on non-free/contrib"):
> On 2012-07-17 10:35, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Could someone who has the time and the tools available do a check on all
> > the dependencies in main for dependencies on non-free/contrib?  This
> > information would be very helpful in evaluating tech-ctte bug #681419.  In
> > particular: [...]
> I wrote a small program to list them, please find the (hopefully
> awk'able and hopefully correct) output in attachment.

Thanks a lot.

To turn this into an answer to Russ's questions:

> > * How many total dependencies are there?  (We're only interested in
> >   Depends or Recommends for this purpose, not Suggests.)


> > * Are all of those dependencies alternative dependencies of the form:
> > 
> >       Depends: foo | foo-nonfree
> > 
> >   or are there other cases?  A list of the other cases would be very
> >   interesting.  (Some may just be bugs, but we may not have thought of
> >   some other possible pattern.)

Reading your Depends as including Recommends, there is also:
    Recommends/Depends: virtual-package
where virtual-package is provided both in main and outside, or
    Recommends/Depends: something | virtual-package
likewise.  This is what you were proposing to change everything to.

In general the non-free packages don't have names that call them out,
so while your pattern says `foo-nonfree' in fact it's more like
`foo | forkle'.

We also have this:
  gscan2pdf: Recommends: 'cuneiform' [choice 1: cuneiform from non-free]
which looks like a bug, which I have filed.

And this:
  yagf: Depends: 'cuneiform | tesseract-ocr' [choice 1: cuneiform from non-free]
which is also a bug but a less serious one.

So in summary, excepting one clearly buggy package, the pattern you
give, and the pattern you are proposing to make universal, are the
only ones in existence.

> > * Are any of these dependencies versioned?  One of the things we're
> >   evaluating is whether it would always be possible to replace those
> >   dependencies with a straight dependency on foo, with foo-nonfree
> >   Providing foo.

No.  Only one of the entries in Eugene's list mentions a version
number and then only in an irrelevant limb of the dependency.


Reply to: