Daniel Burrows wrote: > [..] > I actually would prefer a Meta-Depends sort of solution. The > "dependencies" we're talking about are really not package dependencies > in the normal sense at all, and we shouldn't be confusing them with > normal dependencies. IMO, that basic conflation, while a convenient > and expedient hack when it was introduced years ago, is the cause of > our troubles.
Well, we (me and Luca Bruno (not kaeso, the other one)) decided not to use Meta-Depends because that would've broken meta-packages installed with $non_compliant_tool . Other than this, we could carefully plan this change, so that we're sure that before any metapackage uses this field, the Policy get changed and all current tools support it. Kindly, David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
