Bug#38212: debian-policy: [PROPOSAL] rewrite of section 5.7
On Tue, 25 May 1999, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, May 25, 1999 at 05:36:09PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Such programs should be configured <em>with</em> X support,
> > + and should declare a dependency on <tt>xlib6g</tt> (which
> > + contains X shared libraries). Users who wish to use the
> > + program can install just the relatively small
> > + <tt>xfree86-common</tt> and <tt>xlib6g</tt> packages, and do
> > + not need to install the whole of X.</p>
> >
> > I still fail to see why do I need xfree86-common to execute emacs or
> > ghostview in console mode (as I always was able to do under Debian 2.0).
>
> Because xlib6g depends on xfree86-common.
I mean I fail to see why xlib6g has to depend on xfree86-common.
The fact that I am able to execute emacs or ghostscript in console mode
without xfree86-common shows that the dependency of xlib6g on
xfree86-common is not absolute, and therefore a "Depends:" field should
not be used for that. There is nothing in xlib6g which "breaks" without
xfree86-common.
> xlib6g also depends on libc6 (>= 2.1), but that was not mentioned in the
> above paragraph. The sentence "Users..." is explanatory, not a statement
> of policy in and of itself.
>
> If you read the sentence by itself, you will see that it has no bearing on
> a package maintainer's decision at all.
You have decided that xfree86-common has to be of standard priority.
I think this is not ok because it is not needed at all.
> "Users who wish to use the program can install just the relatively small
> xfree86-common and xlib6g packages, and do not need to install the whole of
> X."
>
> The actual statement of policy is:
>
> "Such programs should be configured with X support, and should declare a
> dependency on xlib6g (which contains X shared libraries)."
>
> This directive is unchanged from the previous version of section 5.7
>
> So, let's get things out in the open. Do you object to the proposal or
> not?
Yes, I will object to this paragraph if it makes you to feel better.
But before that I'm asking for a good rationale for the proposed changes.
> > When I asked about xlib6g's new dependency on xfree86-common, people said
> > "this is to avoid a lot of packages to depend on xfree86-common". Well,
> > hiding real dependencies via indirect dependencies is not the way things
> > are usually done in Debian.
>
> Are you asserting that there is no dependency chain in Debian that is
> deeper than one level? I beg to differ.
No, I'm just saying that xlib6g's dependency (a "Depends" field, to be
precise) on xfree86-common is artificial.
> > Which exactly is the problem which is intended to be solved by adding this
> > dependency?
>
> Read the package description of xfree86-common.
I did.
"xfree86-common contains the filesystem infrastructure required for
further installation of the X Window System in any configuration".
So if I am not going to install the X Window System and only want to
execute packages linked against xlib6g in text mode, I do not need this
package at all.
> Do you object to the proposal? Do you have an amendment for it?
I'm not objecting to the proposal yet, I'm still asking for a good
rationale (and I don't see a good rationale yet).
Thanks.
--
"348c50e7f8384b0ac87d008105b4316d" (a truly random sig)
Reply to: