Bug#878905: debian-policy: Document installability recommendations for dependency alternatives
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 11:47:56AM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 at 11:54:49 +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 11:02:21AM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > > This is made especially difficult because since policy 4.0.1.0 we are not able
> > > to rely on 'priority: optional' packages being installable any more.
> >
> > Oh did we drop that? Why? So I can build Arch: all packages depending on linux-any
> > stuff now? The strict installability requirement is much nicer than this one (the
> > problem is essentially not recursive anymore), and would solve the problem as well.
>
> The change in Policy 4.0.1 was to drop the requirement that
> Priority: optional packages are non-conflicting. This is orthogonal to
> the situation with dbus-user-session, but introduces a new way in which
> a package might be uninstallable for a non-obvious reason (previously,
> you could assume that Priority >= optional would never be uninstallable
> due to conflicts).
>
> Arch: all packages depending on linux-any packages are another case
> of packages being uninstallable for reasons that are at least arguably
> legitimate. dbus-user-session is an example of this case (its next upload
> will be linux-any, duplicating the package 20 times but ensuring that
> it only appears on architectures where it would be installable). This
> didn't change in Policy 4.0.1.
>
The prime example I have is ndisgtk which is a pure python app, but
I made it Architecture: i386 amd64 to avoid issues more than 10 years
ago, though I'm not exactly sure why...
--
Debian Developer - deb.li/jak | jak-linux.org - free software dev
| Ubuntu Core Developer |
When replying, only quote what is necessary, and write each reply
directly below the part(s) it pertains to ('inline'). Thank you.
Reply to: