On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 12:33:02PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 03:52:56AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> >...
> > But, Adrian Bunk warned that this makes violating the baseline too easy.
> > And indeed, I just noticed an attempt to use an extension in a way I don't
> > consider to be valid: #864012. I understand the maintainer's reasoning,
> > and don't blame him for following recommendations of that package's
> > upstream, but it's not appropriate for what I assume our _unwritten_ rules
> > mean. And here's the problem: I can't seem to find an explicit requirement
> > that packages must follow the baseline! So let's discuss and make a policy.
> >...
>
> The policy so far has been "baseline violations are RC bugs".
>
> And while your intentions are laudable, you are solving a small problem
> but creating a huge problem.
>
> For pcsx2, an obscure emulator that only works on i386 and requires SSE2,
> I am saying meh and see how a dependency on sse2-support is actually an
> improvement.
>
> Note that the number of such packages is very low, usually there is
> portable code with the problematic code (build time or runtime) optional.
>
> The problem is that blessing baseline violations with a dependy on
> *-support is completely screwing the baseline.
>
> One interesting aspect of baseline violations are upgrades
> to a new stable.
>
> The documented way to upgrade jessie -> stretch is:
> apt-get upgrade
> apt-get dist-upgrade
>
> Think of at what point newly added *-support dependencies
> will become visible during stretch -> buster upgrades.
sse2-support and other packages that fail to install can massively
screw up systems, potentially leaving dpkg in a state that people
cannot easily recover from - that is, apt-get install -f might not
be working at that point. We should not have such packages.
--
Debian Developer - deb.li/jak | jak-linux.org - free software dev
| Ubuntu Core Developer |
When replying, only quote what is necessary, and write each reply
directly below the part(s) it pertains to ('inline'). Thank you.
