On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 12:57:53PM -0500, Marvin Renich wrote: > * 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. Debian Policy is a process that's open to all - please don't be shy about proposing changes that you think are needed, the worst that will happen is that people will tell you no. :) -- 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
