Re: Policy Weekly Issue #4/16: New source package format
On Fri, 24 Oct 1997, Santiago Vila Doncel wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Oct 1997, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> > As far as I am concerned there is only one remaining issue to be
> > settled with regard to this field: the list of packages upon which
> > dependencies do not need to be listed. I propose that this list be:
> > packages which have `Priority: Standard' or better [...]
>
> This is a good start. However, I think it is too large. "Standard or
> better" includes packages like bison, flex, autoconf or automake.
Well, maybe it'd be better to list *ALL* dependencies in the .deb, and
just tweak which ones we routinely show -- the web scripts on master, for
example, could ignore dependencies on "standard" packages when creating
the package web pages.
This'd be useful in the case of people who are using the standard debian
system as a basis for some other distribution: someone who's building a
debian router with very little filespace might be interested in tweaking
disk usage by installing only parts of "standard", etc -- and without a
list of dependencies, this could get hairy.
Maybe (if we were going to do this) we could add yet another flag to dpkg,
which would choose whether to bother checking all dependencies, or just
the ones we've checked till now -- like "dpkg --strict" or something.
Will
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| harpo@udel.edu lowe@cis.udel.edu lowe@debian.org |
| http://www.cis.udel.edu/~lowe/ |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: