Re: auto-removal and alternative dependencies
On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 01:41:38PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
>
> On 08/12/16 13:35, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 01:02:20PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
[...]
>
> I don't think that clearly addresses the case of alternative dependencies.
>
> My packages do not "require" nagios3, although they will work with it
> if the user doesn't have Icinga.
>
> Maybe that clause could be extended to state that packages (may|may
> not) include alternative dependencies that are not in main, as long as
> at least one of the alternatives is in main.
Not sure what Andrey is supposed to be quoting here, but see
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=681419#275
(Conclusion/ruling at the bottom of that post.)
IOW follow Emilios previous advice and you should be fine both
practically and policy wise.
Regards,
Andreas Henriksson
Reply to: