On Tuesday 18 December 2007, Daniel Baumann wrote: > if you are wondering, why are you submitting a bug report rather than > asking on the mailinglist?
Because I think I gave good arguments for a reversal but wanted to give the opportunity to explain the reasons in case I'd missed something. > once you start doing things manually (by neither using m-a nor > l-m-e-2.6), you should also manually fulfil the depends (equis) That is a rather gross mis-characterization of building out-of-tree modules. I'd hold the standpoint that _manually_ building out-of-tree modules is the *normal* case and that _providing_ them pre-packaged is a service. The use of a tool like module-assistant to build out-of-tree modules is *optional*. > > Please consider reverting. Recommends should be enough in practice now > > that apt/aptitude install recommends by default. > > virtualbox needs the module, it is useless and doesn't work without it. > that's why it is a depends. But there are completely valid other ways to create/provide a module than through a package. The packaging system has never been intended to force users to a certain way of doing things. As I explained, a Recommends should do _exactly_ what you want: install the package by default for most users, but allow users who build the module themselves to do without a package. IMO the old relationship was correct and sufficient; the new one is too tight.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
