Re: mass bug filing for unmet dependencies (Was: firmware status for eagle-usb-*)
> > Note that we do treat dependencies on software we do not distribute as
> > real dependencies.
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 01:20:12AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> In the goal of seeking consistency, I think this requires mass bug
> filing against packages with unmet dependencies, including:
We have traditionally ignored boot loaders because they're outside
our scope. The reason they're outside our scope is not because we don't
treat them as software but that we can't take control of a system without
using a boot loader.
For the rest to be relevant to the firmware discussion, the examples you
mention would have to be cases where we are dealing with the requirement
targets as if they are software.
However, note, that it's fairly easy to throw together a server which
serves some protocol -- this tends to be much easier than throwing
together a new piece of hardware. So, in most cases, if there is any
validity to your bug reports it's quite likely that that could be resolved
reasonably quickly without changing any debian package. In many cases
(tcp protocols where adequate documentation exists), all that would be
required is a simple shell or perl script running under inetd.
That said, I've not gone over all these cases in detail and there
might be some cases where your proposed bug reports have some validity.
[These would be cases where documentation is inadequate to easily and
quickly put together a free implementation of a server for one of these