On 10/02/12 13:55, Justin B Rye wrote:
> There is no obvious reason for filing D-Bus alongside fort77 and
> piuparts in the "devel" section. Unlike them it is a piece of system
> infrastructure guaranteed to be installed and in regular use on any
> end-user machine with a mainstream desktop environment.
Agreed.
Compare:
>
> PACKAGE SECTION DEPENDENCIES
> acpi-support admin Recommends: dbus
> consolekit admin Depends: dbus
> dbus devel
> dbus-x11 x11 Depends: dbus
> policykit admin Depends: dbus
> rsyslog admin
> udev admin
> udisks admin Depends: dbus
>
> In case it isn't obvious, I think it should be in "admin".
I'm not really convinced that most of these should be 'admin' either -
'admin' is described as "Utilities to administer system resources,
manage user accounts, etc." in the most authoritative reference I could
find[1], and D-Bus is an IPC system, not a sysadmin tool - but in
practice 'admin' seems to have become secret code for 'miscellaneous
system-wide daemons' so I suppose we might as well be consistent with
that. It's not as if any of the other sections really fit any better,
unless/until someone follows the Linux Plumbers' Conference's example
and adds a 'plumbing' section...
I'll "fix" this in the next upload.
Thanks,
s
[1] http://packages.debian.org/unstable/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
