Russ Allbery writes: > martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Package: lintian > > Version: 1.23.21 > > Severity: normal > > > W: mdadm: virtual-package-depends-without-real-package-depends recommends: > > mail-transport-agent > > N: > > N: The package declares a depends on a virtual package without listing a > > N: real package as an alternative first. > > N: > > N: A real package should be listed in the first part of the | dependency > > N: in order for the package to be installable by package management > > N: programs that can't or won't guess which alternative to select by > > N: default. In particular, it helps build daemons rebuild the package > > N: without manual overrides. > > N: > > N: Refer to Policy Manual, section 7.4 for details. > > > This makes no sense. Build daemons are only concerned about > > build-depends, and there isn't one package management programme in > > Debian that can't pick an alternative. > > > Please at least don't show this warning for recommends/suggests. > > If package A Build-Depends on package B which in turn then Depends on > virtual package C, I can see two possibilities: either the package system > will want to prompt someone for what package to install, which won't work > because it's non-interactive, or the installed package to satisfy the > dependency on virtual package C will be chosen essentially at random. The > latter leaves open the possibility that a different choice will be made > next time, meaning that we no longer have a consistent and reproducible > build environment. That strikes me as bad, although I'm not sure it's bad > enough to warrant the lintian warning. I'd at least want to see some more > discussion of that first. >
Since you ask for discussion :-). I just got this lintian warning (I replaced emacs21 | xemacs21 by emacsen in my depends field) and I have a little complaint as well. Policy Manual, section 7.4 does not say that a real package must be included in the dependency. It just says "The effect is as if the package(s) which provide a particular virtual package name had been listed by name everywhere the virtual package name appears". I understand the usefulness of this requirement but then shouldn't the Policy Manual be updated to say this? thanks k -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]