Bug#587279: debian-policy: section 2.2.1 needs some tweaking
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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,
This is a bit off-topic for the bug report, but while you're thinking
about rewording this section, it may be prescient to consider
non-explicit dependencies.
For example, the getweb script in foo2jzs fetches non-free firmware
files, yet seems to be currently permissible in main given the current
policy wording since there is no "Depends or Recommends: <external
firmware files>" anywhere in the control file.
Anyway, something worth considering. Perhaps this topic itself would
be better to start as a new bug report?
Best wishes,
Mike
Reply to: