On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 10:58:00AM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> What is the rationale behind this? From the policy, I would think that
> "Recommends" is the perfect dependency here [2]:
>
> | Recommends
> | This declares a strong, but not absolute, dependency. The Recommends
> | field should list packages that would be found together with this one
> | in all but unusual installations.
>
> Why should one use the much stronger "Depends" here?
Well, I have a personal "thing" about this - it strikes me as quirky to
not have a Depends, since those metapackages, without all of them, is
technically not satisfied.
I'm sure this is personal taste, and in the end it won't matter for
most people (except folks who don't install Recommends, but they're going to
break their system regardless), but I'd prefer to see metapackages use
Recommends for the things that should (but don't *have* to be)
installed, and Depends for the things that the metapackage is there for.
I am curious as to what consensus is on -devel
Cheers,
Paul
--
.''`. Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org> | Proud Debian Developer
: :' : 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87
`. `'` http://people.debian.org/~paultag
`- http://people.debian.org/~paultag/conduct-statement.txt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature