On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 08:43:09PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote: > * Hamish Moffatt [Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:18:34 +1000]: > > > Perhaps rt2500-source should recommend bzip2? The relationship seems to > > fit the definition - a package that is usually installed along with it > > but not strictly required. > > Can you tell us in which "unusual installation" is a package that *only* > ships /usr/src/rt2500.tar.bz2 useful *at all* without bzip2 installed?
There are other tools which can read bzip2 files (eg Python's bz2 module, and the tarfile wrapper module). Or Compress::Bzip2 for Perl which is also in the archive. The dependency really belongs with the consumer of the data eg module-assistant rather than the provider. Packages that purely provide PDF files don't depend on PDF tools, although some suggest it. module-assistant happens to call "tar xjf" and should therefore depend on bzip2 (bug filed), but could equally use libcompress-bzip2-perl. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
