So, let me see if I can summarise the core of the dispute: * Manoj feels that a $PATH executable, ie a shell command, failing with a run-time linker missing library error (or indeed other startup failures of a shell command) is a different kind of problem to a non-working command-line option, menu option, command to a program's built-in CLI, etc.
* Manoj feels that these errors are sufficiently bad that they should never happen without a forced or broken Depends. * Everyone agrees that in some circumstances the best answer can be to have non-working command-line options, menu options, etc., when only a Recommends or Suggests is violated and not necessarily a Depends. * AJ and I think that there is no important difference in this context between an executable not working and (for example) a command line option or menu option not working. * AJ and I therefore feel that these errors, while not ideal, are tolerable with only violated Recommends or Suggests, if there are other factors involved which make it a good idea (such as wanting to avoid creating an otherwise-pointless trivial package fragment). Manoj, have I represented you fairly and accurately ? Is there anything else you think you wanted to say ? Does anyone else have anything to say ? Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
