Bug#587279: Bug#603680: libnautilus-extension1: breaks nautilus-share upgrade from lenny
Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux1.fr> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 03:44:43PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
>> Bill, so far you're the only one in #587279 objecting to the
>> clarification making the what-you-call "strange interpretation" crystal
>> clear (and following the way it was always handled).
> Nobody in #587279 is saying that the text is ambiguous. This precisely
> why a policy change was proposed in the first place.
I've always interpreted the current text to mean what the proposed change
says that it should mean, namely that non-default alternatives are okay
but the package cannot depend only on a non-free package. That's why I
originally was going to commit this as an informative change, since I
didn't think it was a normative change from the previous version of
Policy.
I believed that because that's what Debian has done for as long as I've
been involved in it, so I always assumed that was the intended meaning.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: