Re: Depends on -dev package
* Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> [110824 19:34]:
> > Should we then also list -data packages not usually depending on the
> > non-data package and not the other way around.
>
> -data packages *should* depend on the non-data package in an ideal world,
> and the only reason why they don't is because circular dependencies are a
> bigger problem. But -data packages are generally unusable without the
> corresponding main package, so indeed, this is a special case (and has
> been discussed as such on debian-devel).
Usually data packages should not depend on anything. They are data and
usually need nothing to be data. Something else might be using them.
Saying a data package should depend on a package needing it is like
saying a library package should depend one something using the library.
That has nothing to do with the relatively new extended hate for circular
dependencies.
> The latter doesn't make sense to me; why would a viewer depend on any
> specific package containing documents? The viewer is fully usable without
> any packaged documents to view documents that don't come with Debian (and,
> indeed, that's probably the most common use).
Of course it does not make sense. It makes no sense the same way it
makes no sense to have a -dev package depend on a compiler or a libc-dev
(The only difference is how often people are to use packaged libcs and
compilers). It makes no sense to have a file viewer depend on
virtual-package-for-packages-having-that-format | virtual-package-for-anything-that-can-download-stuff | virtual-package-for-anything-generating-that-format,
even though it is hard to get a file in that format without anything
like that.
> >> (My inclination would be to write an explicit exception into Policy
> >> saying that C -dev packages do not have to declare dependencies on any
> >> package that's part of build-essential.)
>
> > build-essential is quite big. I'd really hate to see this.
>
> What packages in build-essential do you think C -dev packages should
> be required to declare explicit dependencies on? dpkg-dev is the only one
> that seems like it could pose any problem, and it's going to be pretty
> rare for that to be any sort of issue since C -dev packages aren't likely
> to care about dpkg-dev one way or the other.
dpkg-dev and it's dependencies are feeled about 90% of what gets pulled
in by installing build-essential. If anything it makes sense it
explicitly list the rest.
(And I fear that would lead to people packaging something equivalent for
fortran could think they should depend on a fortran-compiler, which I
consider to be definitely a bug).
> Note that I explicitly said, and meant, "part of build-essential," not "in
> the transitive closure of build-essential's dependencies."
If you want to say this, please say "things in the Depends: field of
build-essential". As the Depends of build-essential are not part of the
build-essential package either.
Bernhard R. Link
Reply to: