On Tue, 2015-03-24 at 09:29 +0000, Steve McIntyre wrote: > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 08:55:49AM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote: > >On Thu, 1970-01-01 at 00:49 +0000, Martin Stigge wrote: > >> That's easily resolved by installing the u-boot-tools package, but I would > >> have expected that do be a dependency in that case. I see that it's a > >> Suggests, but looks rather essential to me. > > > >u-boot-tools is not a strict requirement for flash-kernel since it is > >only needed on certain platforms, as expressed by the Required-Packages > >field in the flash-kernel database. > > > >Debian Installer (via the flash-kernel-installer udeb) will process that > >field and install what is needed but if you install things by hand (or > >are using debootstrap etc) then you may need to do so manually. > > > >So, I don't think a hard depends would be the right answer. Perhaps > >given that many boards do need u-boot-tools an upgrade to Recommends > >might be in order, but my preference would be for f-k to learn to check > >(at runtime and/or installation time) that the set of Required-Packages > >are present and issue a warning/error, or at least to check that mkimage > >is present before actually using it and printing an appropriate warning > >otherwise. > > To be honest, why not just use the packaging system metadata and stop > trying to reinvent it badly? We've had bugs like this reported for > ages, and it's not doing our users any favours. Just add it as a > Recommends and be done. It's not like the u-boot-tools package is huge > or brings in a lot of other dependencies anyway...
TBH I was moistly just following the lead of whoever did it that way originally. I think you've convinced me to make it at least a Recommends. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1427191902.21742.326.ca...@debian.org
