"Bernhard R. Link" <[email protected]> writes: > * Russ Allbery <[email protected]> [110824 19:34]:
>> -data packages *should* depend on the non-data package in an ideal >> world, and the only reason why they don't is because circular >> dependencies are a bigger problem. But -data packages are generally >> unusable without the corresponding main package, so indeed, this is a >> special case (and has been discussed as such on debian-devel). > Usually data packages should not depend on anything. They are data and > usually need nothing to be data. Something else might be using them. > Saying a data package should depend on a package needing it is like > saying a library package should depend one something using the library. We're just reiterating things that were said in the previous long discussions on debian-devel, so I'll just say that yes, I've heard all these arguments before, and no, I don't find them persuasive. >> Note that I explicitly said, and meant, "part of build-essential," not >> "in the transitive closure of build-essential's dependencies." > If you want to say this, please say "things in the Depends: field of > build-essential". As the Depends of build-essential are not part of the > build-essential package either. We already have a concept of a build-essential set that's defined by Policy, and it doesn't include their dependencies. You're borrowing trouble that we don't actually have. :) -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
