Bug#587279: debian-policy: section 2.2.1 needs some tweaking

[Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux1.fr>]

On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 09:43:34AM +0200, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:49:18AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> 
> > Where does policy define the concept of 'non-default alternative' for 
> > dependencies ?
> 
> This is implied by 7.5:
> 
>      If you want to specify which of a set of real packages should be the
>      default to satisfy a particular dependency on a virtual package, you
>      should list the real package as an alternative before the virtual one.
> 
> Do you think this needs to be made more explicit?

Well, this is close but, in the case we are discussing, a virtual package is not
involved (else a Provides would suffice, and the non-free package would better
be omitted).

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here.