(please, Cc: me on replies) Bill Allombert wrote: > In my opinion, it would be ten time cleaner to use a virtual package > and have both packages Provides it. This way, when the > package-not-in-main change of names, you do not have to change the > dependent packages. Such virtual packages exist, but are not usable here as josm works only with specific JRE implementations (namely, those that come from Sun, so the non-free ones and openjdk). There is no virtual package for these situations. > I would prefer to stick with strict meaning of policy 2.2.1. This way, > we would not have to change free packages where non-free changes. Well, even if the non-free changes name, the main one is still perfectly installable and usable. Including the non-free dependency is just for the convenience for some people, but breaking it would be just a minor issue. Thanks for your replies, Giovanni. -- Giovanni Mascellani <g.mascellani@gmail.com> Pisa, Italy Web: http://giomasce.altervista.org SIP: g.mascellani@ekiga.net Jabber: g.mascellani@jabber.org / giovanni@elabor.homelinux.org GPG: 0x5F1FBF70 (FP: 1EB6 3D43 E201 4DDF 67BD 003F FCB0 BB5C 5F1F BF70)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Questa =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E8?= una parte del messaggio firmata digitalmente