On Tuesday 08 July 2008 15:36:45 Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 19:24:59 +0200, Sune Vuorela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think we should put it in as Depends for now and downgrade if upstream
> > considers it optional. I can write them a email (or locate on irc)
>
> I just spoke with upstream.
>
> A few quotes from my irc conversation:
>
> <me> ksysguardd is expected to work without ksysguard available. How true
> is the opposite ?
> <upstream> not very
>
> <me> we are in debian currently discussing wether ksysguardd should be
> optional (Recommends in debian language) for ksysguard or mandatory
> (Depends).
> <upstream> mandatory
> <upstream> I have never tested ksysguard without ksysguardd :-)
> <upstream> besides, ksysguardd is a tiny program :)
>
> There doesn't seem to be much possibilities of interpretating this in
> different directions.
>
> /Sune

As someone stated on IRC, the debian policy says :
        The Recommends field should list packages that would be found
        together with this one in all but unusual installations.
Which corresponds to this situation. Do you agree ?

Does anyone have another idea/argument ?
I'd like it to be fixed as soon as possible.

-- 
Xavier Vello

-- 
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk

Reply via email to