On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Ben Armstrong wrote: > While that neatly sidesteps the issue, 7.5 says: > > To specify which of a set of real packages should be the default to > satisfy a particular dependency on a virtual package, list the real > package as an alternative before the virtual one. > > But that doesn't specify a 'must' (or even 'should').
Well, obviously there would be a package foo in main too so this would not be violated. I should have included such a package in my example. > What I'm concerned > about is if someone has already added contrib or non-free to their apt > sources for the purpose of providing some software essential to their > needs, by not specifying which dependency is preferable here, the user > will arbitrarily end up with a free or non-free 'foo' which may or may > not be what they want. Though arguably, if they wanted only the > "essential" stuff from contrib/non-free, they could use pinning to > ensure that's all they take. In my intended case I believe they always end up with foo from main, only if they choose foo-contrib will they get it, which is how I think it should be. main should not reference packages from contrib/non-free in any way. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- 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/CAKTje6HCX=2g5vm9kc5qptsxot_fmi81eey2bj+moduhycp...@mail.gmail.com
