Your message dated Sat, 04 Oct 2003 04:01:25 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#214059: debian-policy: Section 2.2.1 unclear on whether
Suggesting non-main packages is OK
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 4 Oct 2003 08:30:24 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Oct 04 03:30:24 2003
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from mail.g.bonet.se [212.181.52.4]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1A5hnz-0005z0-00; Sat, 04 Oct 2003 03:30:23 -0500
Received: from tanya ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [217.215.216.100])
by mail.g.bonet.se (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h948SYhS032984;
Sat, 4 Oct 2003 10:28:35 +0200 (CEST)
(envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Received: from pvz by tanya with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
id 1A5hnr-0002Ve-00; Sat, 04 Oct 2003 10:30:15 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
From: Per von Zweigbergk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: debian-policy: Section 2.2.1 unclear on whether Suggesting non-main
packages
is OK
X-Mailer: reportbug 2.26.1
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2003 10:30:15 +0200
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: Per von Zweigbergk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mail.g.bonet.se id
h948SYhS032984
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0
tests=BAYES_30,HAS_PACKAGE
version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_10_03
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_10_03
(1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.6.1.0
Severity: normal
Recently, a bug report was aimed at the tvtime package -- and we seem to
have uncovered a section in which Debian Policy is not entirely clear.
Bug report #213512 suggested that we should Suggest libdscaler, which is
in contrib, in tvtime, which is in main. However, Section 2.2.1 of the
Debian Policy is unclear on this point. I quote:
[packages in main] must not require a package outside of main for compila=
tion
or execution (thus, the package must not declare a "Depends", "Recommends=
",
or "Build-Depends" relationship on a non-main package)
The literal interpretation of this that it is permissible, but I think it
could be clarified further. It is currently plausible to interpret the
enumeration of dependency fields in Section 2.2.1 as merely a clarifying
example (i.e. "including, but not limited to"), rather than a complete li=
st.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux tanya 2.4.20 #1 m=E5n mar 31 19:30:02 CEST 2003 i686
Locale: LANG=3Dsv_SE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=3Dsv_SE.UTF-8
-- no debconf information
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 214059-done) by bugs.debian.org; 4 Oct 2003 09:10:02 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Oct 04 04:10:01 2003
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from host-12-107-230-171.dtccom.net (glaurung.green-gryphon.com)
[12.107.230.171]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1A5iQL-0000pb-00; Sat, 04 Oct 2003 04:10:01 -0500
Received: from glaurung.green-gryphon.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by glaurung.green-gryphon.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Debian-5) with ESMTP id
h9491QC5000663;
Sat, 4 Oct 2003 04:01:26 -0500
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
by glaurung.green-gryphon.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Debian-5) id
h9491PR0000660;
Sat, 4 Oct 2003 04:01:25 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: glaurung.green-gryphon.com: srivasta set sender to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] using -f
X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.1 (via feedmail 8 I)
To: Per von Zweigbergk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#214059: debian-policy: Section 2.2.1 unclear on whether
Suggesting non-main packages is OK
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: The Debian Project
X-URL: http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux)
(i386-pc-linux-gnu)
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
X-Face: [EMAIL PROTECTED]/;Y^gTjR\T^"B'fbeuVGiyKrvbfKJl!^e|e:iu(kJ6c|QYB57LP*|t
&YlP~HF/=h:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:6Cj0kd#4]>*D,|0djf'CVlXkI,>aV4\}?d_KEqsN{Nnt7
78"OsbQ["56/!nisvyB/uA5Q.{)gm6?q.j71ww.>b9b]-sG8zNt%KkIa>xWg&1VcjZk[hBQ>]j~`Wq
Xl,y1a!(>6`UM{~'X[Y_,Bv+}=L\SS*mA8=s;!=O`ja|@PEzb&i0}Qp,`Z\:6:OmRi*
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2003 04:01:25 -0500
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Per von Zweigbergk's message of
"Sat, 04 Oct 2003 10:30:15 +0200")
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.2 required=4.0
tests=QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT
version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_10_03
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_10_03
(1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 10:30:15 +0200, Per von Zweigbergk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> Package: debian-policy Version: 3.6.1.0 Severity: normal
> Recently, a bug report was aimed at the tvtime package -- and we
> seem to have uncovered a section in which Debian Policy is not
> entirely clear.
> Bug report #213512 suggested that we should Suggest libdscaler,
> which is in contrib, in tvtime, which is in main. However, Section
> 2.2.1 of the Debian Policy is unclear on this point. I quote:
> [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)
So, it explicitly tells you what is not allowed.
> The literal interpretation of this that it is permissible, but I
That is correct.
> think it could be clarified further. It is currently plausible to
> interpret the enumeration of dependency fields in Section 2.2.1 as
> merely a clarifying example (i.e. "including, but not limited to"),
> rather than a complete list.
You can never get policy to the point where it is not
confusing to absolutely anyone. In this specific case, policy
explicitly tells you what is disallowed; in general, anything that is
not prohibited by policy is allowed, and anything not explicitly
required by policy is up to the discretion of the developer.
In general, policy is not exhaustive; it only mentions things
required, or prohibited. Changing this stance would require a major
rewrite, and a far larger policy document, and further constrain
developers needlessly.
manoj
--
"We learn from history that we learn nothing from history." George
Bernard Shaw
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
