Jonathan Nieder <jrnie...@gmail.com> writes:
> (dropped cc's; hopefully that's okay.)
> Hi!
>
> Luca Capello wrote:
>
>> I see these situations as a misuse of Depends: where Recommends: would
>> be perfectly fine, otherwise Recommends: are useless. But given that it
>> seems no one agrees with me, is such a behavior documented somewhere?
>
> Checking policy, I see:
>
> The Recommends field should list packages that would be found
> together with this one in all but unusual installations.
>
> which I grant is not all that helpful.
Look at it from an installing point of view. When installing foo should
also install bar in all but unusual installations then "foo Recomends:
bar" is the right thing.
In the case of a foo-data package recommending the foo package I would
say that that users should not install foo-data but install foo in all
but unusual circumstances. Since foo-data will not be installed directly
but allways through foo the question of wether it should recommend foo
becomes pointless. Yes, foo-data will nearly always be found together
with foo simply because foo depends on foo-data.
Imho we really don't want a recommends for reverse depends. Or do you
think libc6 should recommend coreutils because they will allways be
found together?
MfG
Goswin
--
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/87ei5yb3ci.fsf@frosties.localnet
