* Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org> [110304 11:36]: > Although I agree with you that this parenthetical has been mistaken for > normative language and it should be clarified with regards to intent, the > clarification you've suggested is OTOH weaker than what I understand the > common rule to be. If the goal is to make sure installing a package in main > doesn't automatically pull in a package from non-free, then the main > alternative must be listed first. > > Maybe "must be satisfied by default with only packages in main" expresses > this? > > Or maybe this is splitting hairs and I shouldn't worry too much about a > non-normative parenthetical :)
Not being a DD, much less a policy maintainer, I didn't want to overstep my bounds. :-) There was at least one person in that thread who thought non-main dependencies could be listed first. However, I agree with you, and would prefer to mandate that the first alternative explicitly be the default and that this be required to be in main. ...Marvin -- 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/20110304175753.gb3...@cleo.wdw
