On 10/13/2009 09:47 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 09:37:26AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
The question itself, in its starkest form, is simple.
Under what circumstances, if any, is it considered acceptable for a
package which is installed as a dependency by the upgrade of
another package to silently break the system?
That sounds like something that's so blindingly obviously a bad idea
for any package that you'd hope it doesn't need to be in policy?
That's what I'd have thought, but I've run across a package which does
seem to do this, and the maintainer seems to consider it an acceptable
situation. Before trying to argue too much about that, I wanted to
confirm that it was in fact 'officially' considered unacceptable. (In
fact I'd prefer to exhaust reasonable means of resolving the problem
first, if at all possible - I don't like getting into arguments.)
--
The Wanderer
Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.
Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
