Bas, On 04/08/2014 08:04 PM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: > Why did you chose to downgrade the priority?
Because of the following extra dependencies, for which the postgis package currently seems to violate Policy 2.5: - libproj0 - libgdal1 - libpango1.0-0 - libpg-java - libjson-c2 - libjson0 (That's according to debcheck here: http://qa.debian.org/debcheck.php?dist=unstable&package=postgis) > Both TinyOWS and pgRouting depend on postgresql-9.3-postgis-2.1 Somewhat off-topic: Can't TinyOWS run on a different server than the database? Oh, it's just a recommends, fair enough. However, that still reminds me: Both of these likely only depend on 'CREATE EXTENSION postgis;' to work (and result in some minimally required PostGIS version). Other packages like postgresql-9.3-postgis-2.0 or postgresql-9.2-postgis-2.1 should be able to satisfy that dependency as well. (Granted, that's more of a pgapt issue.) I'm not sure how to best express that dependency. Would a virtual postgresql-X.Y-postgis-extension package make sense? So you could have a dependency like postgresql-X.Y-postgis-extension >= 1.5, for example? What do you think? > Priority optional is usually the right choice, and recommended for all > Debian GIS packages. Back to the topic: Reading Policy 2.5, optional software is "all the software that you might reasonably want to install if you didn't know what it was and don't have specialized requirements" I felt like that didn't apply to postgis (nor do I think that applies to any GIS software). Thus, given the debcheck report and that wording, I adjusted the priority. Is there a general consensus that GIS stuff should rather have priority optional? How should I deal with the above extra dependencies, in that case? Regards Markus
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pkg-grass-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-grass-devel
