Re: Indirect dependencies

[Yann Dirson <ydirson@a2points.com>]

Christian Schwarz writes:
 > Personally, I think the following would be `logical' :)
 > 
 >   We use direct-logical dependencies for direct-physical dependencies and
 >   we use indirect-logical dependencies for indirect-physical dependencies. 

OK for the general inter-source-package case.

Now I have for the console-tools source package several binary
packages, among which:

* console-tools-libs that contains the changelog,copyright,etc. in its
doc dir.
* console-tools that depends on console-tools-libs, with a doc symlink
to console-tools-libs
* kbd-compat that depends on console-tools, with a doc symlink
to console-tools-libs

As already stated, the current setting limits the number of symlinks
traversed when accessing /usr/doc/kbd-compat/whatever.  Lintian gives
me an error for no direct dependancy in this case, but it is highly
improbable that I break anything by changing the deps.

I think it *would be possible* to allow such indirect-logical deps
reflecting direct-physical deps, at least in the case of a
doc-dir-symlink, in the particular case of a multi-binary package.

But maybe it's too much fuss, and the simple solution would be to add
a direct-logical dep as well.

-- 
Yann Dirson  <ydirson@a2points.com>      | Stop making M$-Bill richer & richer,
alt-email:     <dirson@univ-mlv.fr>      |     support Debian GNU/Linux:
debian-email:   <dirson@debian.org>      |         more powerful, more stable !
http://www.a2points.com/homepage/3475232 | Check <http://www.debian.org/>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org