On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:49:18AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 12:45:49AM -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote: > > On Monday 19 July 2010 11:26:38 Russ Allbery wrote: > > > diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml > > > index 0b3c1a1..06c1fdc 100644 > > > --- a/policy.sgml > > > +++ b/policy.sgml > > > @@ -476,9 +476,12 @@ > > > <item> > > > must not require a package outside of <em>main</em> > > > for compilation or execution (thus, the package must > > > - not declare a "Depends", "Recommends", or > > > - "Build-Depends" relationship on a non-<em>main</em> > > > - package), > > > + not declare a <tt>Pre-Depends</tt>, <tt>Depends</tt>, > > > + <tt>Recommends</tt>, <tt>Build-Depends</tt>, > > > + or <tt>Build-Depends-Indep</tt> relationship on a > > > + non-<em>main</em> package unless that package is only > > > + listed as a non-default alternative for a package > > > + in <em>main</em), > > > </item> > > > <item> > > > must not be so buggy that we refuse to support them,
> Where does policy define the concept of 'non-default alternative' for
> dependencies ?
This is implied by 7.5:
If you want to specify which of a set of real packages should be the
default to satisfy a particular dependency on a virtual package, you
should list the real package as an alternative before the virtual one.
Do you think this needs to be made more explicit?
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
