Re: Bug#587279: debian-policy: section 2.2.1 needs some tweaking
* Russ Allbery [2012-01-05 09:25 -0800]:
> This is the bug concerning the wording in current Policy 2.2.1:
>
> In addition, the packages in main
>
> * must not require a package outside of main for compilation or
> execution (thus, the package must not declare a "Depends",
> "Recommends", or "Build-Depends" relationship on a non-main
> package),
>
> There are two separate issues here. One is the question of what to do
> about non-default alternatives (like Depends: unrar-free | unrar). The
> other is that this is not a complete list of relevant fields.
This reads like you ask if "main | non-free" should be allowed. In my
opinion, the question should rather be if it must be "main | non-free"
or if both, "main | non-free" and "non-free | main", should be allowed
and how a possible mechanism to let users choose between "always prefer
free packages" and "follow the maintainer's recommendation, even it
a non-free package is preferred" could look like. There is already
a way to express "never install non-free packages", i.e., vi
sources.list.
A bug that occurred because a Ubuntu maintainer assumed that "main
| universe" would not be not allowed (the wording in their policy
substitute was not clear back then) can be found at:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/704377
The question if "main | non-free" should be allowed is very similar to
the Ubuntu "main | universe" problem, except that the latter missed the
ideological part.
> The second problem is, so far as I can tell, informative and completely
> non-controversial, so rather than have it blocked by the first problem,
> I've gone ahead and committed the following patch:
>
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index 79281e9..c1ff4b4 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -489,9 +489,9 @@
> <item>
> must not require or recommend a package outside
> of <em>main</em> for compilation or execution (thus, the
> - package must not declare a "Depends", "Recommends", or
> - "Build-Depends" relationship on a non-<em>main</em>
> - package),
> + package must not declare a "Pre-Depends", "Depends",
> + "Recommends", "Build-Depends", or "Build-Depends-Indep"
> + relationship on a non-<em>main</em> package),
> </item>
> <item>
> must not be so buggy that we refuse to support them,
>
> The remaining issue on this bug is then the discussion of what we want to
> say about alternative non-free dependencies.
In <87wrshvqh4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> you wrote that you filed a bug
about this second problem, mentioning the bug's number in this bug could
be useful.
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-main shows the
according part of the policy with above patch applied. So one part of
this bug is fixed in policy and for the other one, there is an other bug
(additional to the already merged one)? If this is true, this bug can
be closed or merged.
Carsten
Reply to: