Re: Mass Bug Filing: Missing Build-Depends: graphviz
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 11:26:16AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Yes, so that's a bug in those programs, not in doxygen. It would be "fixed" by
> > adding graphviz as a Depends to doxygen, but that would be incorrect.
>
> Please note that it is really doxygen who calls dot while those
> programs are being built, not really those programs. And doxygen calls
> dot because the HAVE_DOT variable is set to yes by doxygen, indicating
> that the dot command is available.
No, it is a configuration option which is set by the calling program. It
defaults to yes, and for that reason it makes sense that there should be a
Recommends relation. But the caller is not required to keep the default, so if
it does, it is calling dot through doxygen.
> Do you agree, at least, that it is not doxygen business to claim
> that the dot command is available without a Depends?
I just reread policy, and changed my mind on this.
Policy says: The Depends field should be used if the depended-on package is
required for the depending package to provide a significant amount of
functionality. The Recommends field should list packages that would be found
together with this one in all but unusual installations.
I wouldn't consider the graphs a "significant amount of functionality", but
that is subjective. I'd leave it to the package maintainer to decide whether
that is the case. Given that they chose to make HAVE_DOT the default, it seems
that they do, so then a Depends would be in order.
On the other hand, if they decide that it isn't, then the proper way to use
doxygen with HAVE_DOT enabled (explicitly or as the default) is to depend on
graphviz.
So I agree that if HAVE_DOT defaults to yes, it should be a Depends relation.
> Since we are all Cc:ing the bug address: This bug report is not to ask
> doxygen to depend on graphviz, that would be only one of the two possible
> outcomes.
Agreed.
Thanks,
Bas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1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=5Z8f
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: