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

Re: Bug#684726: ITP: check_v46 -- Icinga / Nagios plugin for dual stacked (IPv4 / IPv6) hosts



On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 00:32:57 +0300
Timo Juhani Lindfors <timo.lindfors@iki.fi> wrote:

> Christoph Anton Mitterer <calestyo@scientia.net> writes:
> > Each package depends on exactly what it needs to work and recommends
> > anything which adds e.g. additional features but doesn't cause
> > non-graceful breakage if missing.
> 
> I guess that really depends on what non-graceful breakage means. I
> personally assume that not installing recommended packages can mean that
> for example the default configuration of the package does not work at
> all and the user has to write their own configuration to make the
> software work.

.. as long as there is some indication that the problem is a missing
Recommends. 

devscripts does a lot of (much appreciated) work for this and other
packages don't necessarily have to go that far but there should be an
obvious statement (in the package description if short, in the
README.Debian / man page if longer) that error foo means that you
either install the recommended bar or adjust your configuration by
doing baz. That would be something close to "graceful breakage".

The kind of handling done by devscripts would be nice to see in other
packages. Lack of such handling could also be seen as a bug in the
package and does not mean that the package must Depend on something
which is not directly necessary. Fix the bug, not mangle the packaging
to workaround the bug.

I haven't allowed Recommends to be installed by default since it
became the default - without problems so far. Makes me think that other
maintainers aren't risking the default implementation being broken when
a Recommends: is missing or else implementing something akin to the
devscripts approach.

(Emdebian simply doesn't implement Recommends. emgrip (1))

-- 


Neil Williams
=============
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/

Attachment: pgpALcPdxId9h.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: