On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 10:07:35PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > I don't think that the basis for a package's inclusion in main should be the > packaging in main of appropriate content.
The Debian Policy says something pretty close to that, in my view.
2.2.1 The main section
Every package in main and non-US/main must comply with the DFSG (Debian
Free Software Guidelines).
In addition, 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),
* must not be so buggy that we refuse to support them, and
* must meet all policy requirements presented in this manual.
Similarly, the packages in non-US/main
* must not require a package outside of main or non-US/main for
compilation or execution,
* must not be so buggy that we refuse to support them,
* must meet all policy requirements presented in this manual.
OTOH, as you're sure to note, an easy way around this is that a package can
be completely useless in main as long as what it depends on isn't a
package. Maybe that *was* your point.
> That would be a waste of archive resources.
Er, before heading down this road, I think you should attempt an objective
demonstration that we seem to give a damn about wasting archive resources
in the first place.
--
G. Branden Robinson | Optimists believe we live in the
Debian GNU/Linux | best of all possible worlds.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Pessimists fear that this really is
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | the best of all possible worlds.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
