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

Bug#861242: comment on find-file-in-project



On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 04:49:35PM +0500, Lev Lamberov wrote:
> Hi Nicholas,
> 
> I've quickly looked through your package.
> 
> I'd suggest to not capitalize short description. You can find some
> advises here [0].
> 
> There's already a newer upstream version, 5.4.3.
> 
> Also commentary in the source code says that the package depends on GNU
> find. In Debian it is in the findutils package. Well, it is Essential,
> but still I'd suggest to add it to dependencies and built-dependencies
> of your package.
> 
> Cheers!
> Lev
> 
> [0] https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch06.en.html#bpp-pkg-synopsis

Hi Lev,

Thank you for taking a look at this :-)

I've fixed the short description and updated to the newest upstream
version (wow, two days in a row!).

I also feel like it would be a good idea to have findutils in the
depends, but what I understood from policy prohibits this.  For
example,

  Packages are not required to declare any dependencies they have on
  other packages which are marked Essential (see below), and should
  not do so unless they depend on a particular version of that
  package.4

and from the footnote

  4 Essential is needed in part to avoid unresolvable dependency loops
  on upgrade. If packages add unnecessary dependencies on packages in
  this set, the chances that there will be an unresolvable dependency
  loop caused by forcing these Essential packages to be configured
  first before they need to be is greatly increased. It also increases
  the chances that frontends will be unable to calculate an upgrade
  path, even if one exists.  Also, functionality is rarely ever
  removed from the Essential set, but packages have been removed from
  the Essential set when the functionality moved to a different
  package. So depending on these packages just in case they stop being
  essential does way more harm than good.

I would like to avoid doing more harm than good ;-)

Cheers,
Nicholas

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: