On 2016-12-08 13:08, Andreas Henriksson wrote:
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.
It does when one of the alternatives doesn't exist in the archive.
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.)
Andrey was quoting the section of policy that the TC ruling you mention applies to.
Specifically there's no practical difference between "package-in-non-free | package-in-main" and "package-removed-from-debian | package-in-main" so far as acceptable dependencies for packages in main are concerned.
Regards, Adam