On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 11:01:35PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> After the discussion started in
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2003/debian-policy-200312/msg00020.html,
> I'd now like to formally suggest changing policy.
This is a bad recommendation, desirable only because exim4 isn't packaged
properly.
exim4's desired dependencies are broken, because the exact same broken
installation is possible not simply by upgrading from an old system with
a non-exim MTA installed, but by converting from exim to a different MTA.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2003/debian-policy-200312/msg00051.html
exim4's existing dependencies are broken, because its expressing a
dependency on exim4 by listing conflicts for every package you could have
installed instead of it. If exim4-config doesn't need exim4 installed to
be usefully functional, it doesn't need to conflict with other m-t-a's,
if it does need exim4 installed it should be using a dependency.
> The original wording is a legacy from the times when we didn't have
> packaging tools as sophisticated as apt
This isn't the case.
If splitting up the package the way you have doesn't work; split it
up differently.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature