Re: Depends on -dev package
"Bernhard R. Link" <brlink@debian.org> writes:
> * Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> [110824 19:34]:
>> -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.
We're just reiterating things that were said in the previous long
discussions on debian-devel, so I'll just say that yes, I've heard all
these arguments before, and no, I don't find them persuasive.
>> 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.
We already have a concept of a build-essential set that's defined by
Policy, and it doesn't include their dependencies. You're borrowing
trouble that we don't actually have. :)
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: