[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: base dependency warning

On Sun, Dec 05, 1999 at 10:58:55PM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> Darren O. Benham writes:
>  > Please be aware that console-tools is in base but
>  > the dependency console-data (>> 1999.08.29-3)
>  > can not be met with packages in base.
>  > 
>  > This should be a release critical bug.  However, there are 150 packages
>  > like this and I do not wish to increase the RC count by that much.
>  > Instead, I'm letting everyone know via email
> Is any statement about section "base" written in policy ?  I did not
> found one a week ago when I checked before suggesting that we throw
> "base" out...
> I posted on debian-project about this, and only got positive
> feedback.  This mail is quoted in the DWN dated 99/11/30.  I then
> posted a request to override-changes to have the overrides file
> edited.  My announced schedule is also a massive (although quiet)
> bug-report to packages still in base after monday dinstall run (that's
> tomorrow).
> It appears our efforts are incompatible here ;)
> May we have your feelings on this issue ?
Nothing in policy.  Main and priority levels are all that are mentioned.
The original authors of Lintian, however, felt value in including base and
oldlibs in the check.  See
http://www.debian.org/lintian/reports/depcheck.html for more details.

For my opinion, base section should either be defined as to what goes in
and who decides or the base section removed.

In reality, the base section idea could be better served by shuffling the
priorities and better defining the levels... but that's another issue.

Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also.
* http://benham.net/index.html        <gecko@benham.net>           <><  *
* -------------------- * -----------------------------------------------*
* Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster          *
* <gecko@debian.org> <secretary@debian.org> <lintian-maint@debian.org>  *
* <webmaster@debian.org> <gecko@fortunet.com> <webmaster@spi-inc.org>   *

Attachment: pgp54GegCW5v0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: