>>>>> Russ Allbery <email@example.com> writes:
>>>>> Ivan Shmakov <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>>>>> Adam Borowski <email@example.com> writes:
>>> libtasn1-doc: libtasn1-6-dev
>>> * TRANSITIVELY BAD: probably useful if you do TASN (whatever it is),
>>> pulled in by a very-widespread library (gnutls)
>> That’s Abstract Syntax Notation One (or ASN.1), and while I use it
>> all the time (notation, that is; not this specific library at the
>> moment), I see no reason for a -dev package to depend on a -doc one
>> any stronger than with a mere Suggests:.
> We have some specific Policy about this:
> package should declare at most a Suggests on package-doc. Otherwise,
> package should declare at most a Recommends on package-doc.
> If you feel that this should cap the dependency at Suggests across
> the board, feel free to submit a bug against debian-policy.
Actually, no, “transitively bad” above seems like a correct
While I dislike adding any more complexity to APT dependencies,
can there perhaps be a separate Recommends-If-Manual: list of
packages to only be installed when the depending package is
marked as manually installed (as per apt-mark(8); and when
recommended packages are otherwise considered for installing, as
To ensure backward compatibility, this condition would have to
also apply for the packages also in the Recommends: list.
Moreover, for one release cycle, any packages with
Recommends-If-Manual: would have to have that same dependencies
duplicated in Recommends: as well.
FSF associate member #7257 58F8 0F47 53F5 2EB2 F6A5 8916 3013 B6A0 230E 334A