>>>>> Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> writes: >>>>> Ivan Shmakov <i...@siamics.net> writes: >>>>> Adam Borowski <kilob...@angband.pl> writes:
>>> libtasn1-doc: libtasn1-6-dev >>> * TRANSITIVELY BAD: probably useful if you do TASN (whatever it is), >>> pulled in by a very-widespread library (gnutls) >> That’s Abstract Syntax Notation One (or ASN.1), and while I use it >> all the time (notation, that is; not this specific library at the >> moment), I see no reason for a -dev package to depend on a -doc one >> any stronger than with a mere Suggests:. > We have some specific Policy about this: > https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s-docs-additional […] > package should declare at most a Suggests on package-doc. Otherwise, > package should declare at most a Recommends on package-doc. > If you feel that this should cap the dependency at Suggests across > the board, feel free to submit a bug against debian-policy. Actually, no, “transitively bad” above seems like a correct assessment. While I dislike adding any more complexity to APT dependencies, can there perhaps be a separate Recommends-If-Manual: list of packages to only be installed when the depending package is marked as manually installed (as per apt-mark(8); and when recommended packages are otherwise considered for installing, as per APT::Install-Recommends)? To ensure backward compatibility, this condition would have to also apply for the packages also in the Recommends: list. Moreover, for one release cycle, any packages with Recommends-If-Manual: would have to have that same dependencies duplicated in Recommends: as well. […] -- FSF associate member #7257 58F8 0F47 53F5 2EB2 F6A5 8916 3013 B6A0 230E 334A