Bug#235525: debian-policy: [PROPOSAL] Relax priority relations between packages (Policy 2.5)
* Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) [040302 12:55]:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 10:36:45AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > 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 same happens with libraries needed by a program.
> No it's not, because those libraries don't need to be removed when
> new libraries are installed. That's not the case with exim4-config,
> apparently. (And if it is the case, we can handle it exactly as we handle
> libraries, with no policy change required)
Anthony, first of all, I don't see any reason why policy should make
any restriction if there is not a proper logical cause for it.
In this thread, there was no cause given until now why this
restriction is still necessary, so I think we should remove it.
Furthermore, if you disagree with the decision of the maintainers of
exim4 in the way they split their package, please try to convince
either the maintainer, or, if that doesn't work, appeal to the
technical committee, according to Section 6.1 of the constitution.
But please don't mix up different issues: Some restriction in the
policy was noticed, and there is the question if there still is a
proper cause for that. If there is, we should leave the restriction.
But if there is no cause, we should remove it. So, please either show
a proper cause, or accept removal of this restriction. This has
nothing to do that this restriction was noticed first at a package
that is packaged in a way you don't like.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Reply to: