On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 09:43:34AM +0200, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:49:18AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > 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?
Well, this is close but, in the case we are discussing, a virtual package is not involved (else a Provides would suffice, and the non-free package would better be omitted). Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100727171724.gu15...@yellowpig
