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

Re: Legitimate exercise of our constitutional decision-making processes [Was, Re: Tentative summary of the amendments]

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 02:16:14PM +0200, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> On 29 October 2014 13:40, Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> wrote:
> >> * if we go the MTA/sh route, then we define lowest common denominator
> >> interface of an init system and only init systems providing that
> >> (possibly with a systemd-shim) can be init systems in the archive and
> >> also applications can only depend on presence of these particular
> >> interfaces;
> >
> > I think there's possibly a slight logic gap here, and that's around
> > "applications can only depend on presence of these particular interfaces".
> >
> > As far as I'm aware, we don't actually say that anywhere. Applications can
> > only /rely/ on those interfaces, but it's certainly possible for an
> > application to have a Depends: on a particular shell.
> Shell is relatively harmless, imagine if, for example, LibreOffice
> suddenly had a dependency on Exim (due to some special email sending
> options used in the mail merge feature) and so installing LibreOffice
> would also change your MTA.

Or, if you installed memtest86, and it replaced lilo by installing grub?

My point is that I believe that we should be clear what we're saying
here. I don't think that (as a project) we've said quite so strongly
that program X may only use Y features, or are restricted from declaring
a Depends: line.
That is quite different to the comment above about defining a lowest
common denominator, which is not (as far as I can tell) what this GR is


Reply to: