Daniel Baumann wrote:
Michael Tokarev wrote:
Hmm. But initially both were Recommends, maybe you can provide
at least a changelog entry explaining the change?
there were changelog entries refering to bug numbers. there's not much
in amending 'history'.
I mentioned the bug numbers in my initial submission -- when
the deps were added to Recommends. There's no mention of when
Recommends were "upgraded" to Depends.
Ok, now I see where it uses mtools. There are 2 variants of
syslinux - from linux/ and from mtools/ directories in the
source tarball. The former does not use mtools but requires
root permissions to mount the target device. That was the
one I used here without knowing it - it looks like long time
ago I had that binary on my system and it were floating around
since that time.
So yes, it's either mtools or root dependency. No magic
anymore. Also some perl scripts are using mtools too.
But what about dosfstools? Where's that dependency? I
see only http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=253768
which suggests adding dosfstools as recommends. But where
syslinux depends on dosfstools?
So the question remains really.
Now it's difficult to parse that.
the argument of using extlinux and thus currently being forced to have
mtools and dosfstools installed is valid as long as extlinux and
syslinux being in the same package.
splitting out extlinux doesn't make sense until it's not packaged as
being a replacement for grub, that would be micropackaging which we
carefully avoid.
therefore, not splitting out as of now.
I'm not asking you about splitting. I'm merely thinking what to
do for *me*. But it's really interesting - maybe I should just
adopt update-grub script. For fun if nothing else... ;)
/mjt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
