On 11-05-17 at 05:39pm, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: > On 2011-05-17 17:24, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > On 11-05-17 at 05:03pm, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: > >> currently libjack "recommends" to install jackd, which usually > >> evaluates to not automatically install jackd if a package depends > >> on libjack. > > > > It seems you have the terms confused, but the actual effect is > > correct: > > > > Currently libjack _suggests_ jackd (not recommend). > > correct, sorry for the confusion.
No problem. Just took me a moment to wrap it around in my head :-) > > I agree with the logic of that bugreport: > > > > Generally libraries for daemons should *not* recommend their daemon. > > good to know. > i darkly remember something like this, but cannot find it right now. > do you have any links? I was not referring to Debian Policy, but summarizing the sanity that I then afterwards elaborated on a bit. Sorry, I could have mentioned more clearly that it was my own personal reasoning, not a universal truth. The underlying rules of Suggests and Recommends is, however, quite clearly defined in Debian Policy ยง7.2: http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#s-binarydeps There it says that "Recommends:" is for needs at "all but unusual installations". So it is not enough that it is /often/ needed. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
