Marvin Renich <m...@renich.org> wrote: * Carsten Hey <cars...@debian.org> [110304 06:17]: > * Paul Wise [2011-03-04 12:54 +0800]: > > Debian Policy section 2.2.1 already covers this: > > > > ...the package must not declare a "Depends", "Recommends", or > > "Build-Depends" relationship on a non-main package. > > > > http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-main > > This can be read in different ways: > > * All of the alternatives must be in main. > * The first alternative must be in main. > * One of the alternatives must be in main. >From an English language POV, the quote above (taken out of context) clearly forbids any alternative in a Depends or Recommends from being outside of main. Here is the quote with enough context to show that the intent was otherwise and that other interpretations are reasonable: ...the packages in main • must not require a package outside of main for compilation or execution (thus, the package must not declare a "Depends", "Recommends", or "Build-Depends" relationship on a non-main package) I am not a DD or an expert on policy, but I would interpret the parenthetical to be explanatory rather than normative. Here is a suggested wording to clarify the parenthetical: ...the packages in main • must not require a package outside of main for compilation or execution (thus, all declared "Depends", "Recommends", and "Build-Depends" relationships must be satisfiable with only packages in main) I will file a wishlist bug against policy if there are no objections. ...Marvin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110304154535.ga3...@cleo.wdw
Seems reasonable to me. Scott K
