Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't see anything broken in britney's handling of this package. > gnucash-docs doesn't depend on gnucash, so this version of gnucash-docs is > perfectly installable in testing right now -- it's just not co-installable > with gnucash itself, which is not a requirement.
Hrm, I guess I see the logic here, though it seems like a better solution could be found than: > If the package shouldn't have been allowed to progress into testing without > gnucash, the way to ensure this is by either opening a dummy serious bug on > gnucash-docs or by making gnucash-docs depend on the corresponding version > of gnucash instead of merely suggesting it. A dependency would certainly be wrong, since it doesn't actually depend. The point is that the documentation is inconsistent with the old version of the program. Of course, a conflict is, strictly speaking, also wrong. Maybe what we need is a negative version of "Recommends", that is, just as Conflicts is the negative version of Depends, perhaps we need a way to say "it is recommended that you do *not* install X along with this." Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
