On Sun, 09 Jan 2005, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Jan 08, Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > atmel-firmware . Would you argue that at76c503a-source should neither > > Depends: nor Recommends: atmel-firmware ? If so, why? If you changed > Yes. Read the debian-legal@ archive if you care about the details.
Would even the module package built from the at76c503a-source package neither Depends: nor Recommends: atmel-firmware? I still haven't been able to understand this line of reasoning myself, since if I were to build a package foo; that needed foo-data; to work, I'd certainly include a Depends: foo-data in the package. If I didn't, I'd expect someone to file an RC bug against my package. If you wouldn't mind, sumarizing why the case of the module package built from amtel-source is has different rules for Depends: than the foo package would help me at least understand this line of reasoning.[1] [Yes, I really have read almost all of the messages in this thread, and I'm still having a hard time figuring out this line of reasoning.] Don Armstrong 1: It would also be useful if the specific cases where Depends: like this were not required when they appear to actually exists could be codified into policy. -- "It's not Hollywood. War is real, war is primarily not about defeat or victory, it is about death. I've seen thousands and thousands of dead bodies. Do you think I want to have an academic debate on this subject?" -- Robert Fisk http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
