-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Jackson) writes:
> * No-one else on the committee has said anything else of substance. I have personally been willing to tolerate the situation where a package delivers several binaries, one of which might only work if some "suggested" other package was also installed. I know of cases where the affected binary wasn't necessary to the general use of the package, and breaking it into a separate single-binary package just didn't feel all that useful. In the days when everyone running Debian used a package management front-end that made "suggests" relationships obvious, this feel like a reasonable tradeoff between strict dependencies and package count bloat. Times have changed. In discussing this with Manoj on IRC, I realized that arguing in favor of tolerating broken run-time dependencies wasn't really a position I wanted to take. So, when the question is called, I think the only "right" answer is to expect packaging to cause run-time dependencies to be fulfilled, suggesting that in this and similar cases splitting the "offending" binary into a separate package that pulls in the "extra" dependencies is the right thing to do. Bdale -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.6 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/> iD8DBQE9H921ZKfAp/LPAagRAhdmAJ99XKlXrw3xP0MlAYterpBia6yclwCfUVIW jVaZv1qid5x6p8UAGmfS5Hk= =hQJT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
