[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Why does Debian distributed firmware not need to be Depends: upon? [was Re: LCC and blobs]

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jan 08, Josh Triplett <josh.trip@verizon.net> wrote:
> > atmel-firmware .  Would you argue that at76c503a-source should neither
> > Depends: nor Recommends: atmel-firmware ?  If so, why?  If you changed
> Yes. Read the debian-legal@ archive if you care about the details.

Would even the module package built from the at76c503a-source package
neither Depends: nor Recommends: atmel-firmware? 

I still haven't been able to understand this line of reasoning
myself, since if I were to build a package foo; that needed foo-data;
to work, I'd certainly include a Depends: foo-data in the package. If
I didn't, I'd expect someone to file an RC bug against my package.

If you wouldn't mind, sumarizing why the case of the module package
built from amtel-source is has different rules for Depends: than the
foo package would help me at least understand this line of
reasoning.[1] [Yes, I really have read almost all of the messages in
this thread, and I'm still having a hard time figuring out this line
of reasoning.]

Don Armstrong

1: It would also be useful if the specific cases where Depends: like
this were not required when they appear to actually exists could be
codified into policy.
"It's not Hollywood. War is real, war is primarily not about defeat or
victory, it is about death. I've seen thousands and thousands of dead
bodies. Do you think I want to have an academic debate on this
 -- Robert Fisk

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: