On 11-05-17 at 05:39pm, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> On 2011-05-17 17:24, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > On 11-05-17 at 05:03pm, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> >> currently libjack "recommends" to install jackd, which usually 
> >> evaluates to not automatically install jackd if a package depends 
> >> on libjack.
> > 
> > It seems you have the terms confused, but the actual effect is 
> > correct:
> > 
> > Currently libjack _suggests_ jackd (not recommend).
> correct, sorry for the confusion.

No problem.  Just took me a moment to wrap it around in my head :-)

> > I agree with the logic of that bugreport:
> > 
> > Generally libraries for daemons should *not* recommend their daemon.
> good to know.
> i darkly remember something like this, but cannot find it right now. 
> do you have any links?

I was not referring to Debian Policy, but summarizing the sanity that I 
then afterwards elaborated on a bit.

Sorry, I could have mentioned more clearly that it was my own personal 
reasoning, not a universal truth.

The underlying rules of Suggests and Recommends is, however, quite 
clearly defined in Debian Policy ยง7.2: 

There it says that "Recommends:" is for needs at "all but unusual 

So it is not enough that it is /often/ needed.

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to