On Tue, 25 May 1999, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Tue, May 25, 1999 at 05:36:09PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > > Such programs should be configured <em>with</em> X support, > > + and should declare a dependency on <tt>xlib6g</tt> (which > > + contains X shared libraries). Users who wish to use the > > + program can install just the relatively small > > + <tt>xfree86-common</tt> and <tt>xlib6g</tt> packages, and do > > + not need to install the whole of X.</p> > > > > I still fail to see why do I need xfree86-common to execute emacs or > > ghostview in console mode (as I always was able to do under Debian 2.0). > > Because xlib6g depends on xfree86-common.
I mean I fail to see why xlib6g has to depend on xfree86-common. The fact that I am able to execute emacs or ghostscript in console mode without xfree86-common shows that the dependency of xlib6g on xfree86-common is not absolute, and therefore a "Depends:" field should not be used for that. There is nothing in xlib6g which "breaks" without xfree86-common. > xlib6g also depends on libc6 (>= 2.1), but that was not mentioned in the > above paragraph. The sentence "Users..." is explanatory, not a statement > of policy in and of itself. > > If you read the sentence by itself, you will see that it has no bearing on > a package maintainer's decision at all. You have decided that xfree86-common has to be of standard priority. I think this is not ok because it is not needed at all. > "Users who wish to use the program can install just the relatively small > xfree86-common and xlib6g packages, and do not need to install the whole of > X." > > The actual statement of policy is: > > "Such programs should be configured with X support, and should declare a > dependency on xlib6g (which contains X shared libraries)." > > This directive is unchanged from the previous version of section 5.7 > > So, let's get things out in the open. Do you object to the proposal or > not? Yes, I will object to this paragraph if it makes you to feel better. But before that I'm asking for a good rationale for the proposed changes. > > When I asked about xlib6g's new dependency on xfree86-common, people said > > "this is to avoid a lot of packages to depend on xfree86-common". Well, > > hiding real dependencies via indirect dependencies is not the way things > > are usually done in Debian. > > Are you asserting that there is no dependency chain in Debian that is > deeper than one level? I beg to differ. No, I'm just saying that xlib6g's dependency (a "Depends" field, to be precise) on xfree86-common is artificial. > > Which exactly is the problem which is intended to be solved by adding this > > dependency? > > Read the package description of xfree86-common. I did. "xfree86-common contains the filesystem infrastructure required for further installation of the X Window System in any configuration". So if I am not going to install the X Window System and only want to execute packages linked against xlib6g in text mode, I do not need this package at all. > Do you object to the proposal? Do you have an amendment for it? I'm not objecting to the proposal yet, I'm still asking for a good rationale (and I don't see a good rationale yet). Thanks. -- "348c50e7f8384b0ac87d008105b4316d" (a truly random sig)
