On 13/11/14 03:29, Russ Allbery wrote: > Tim Wootton <t...@tee-jay.demon.co.uk> writes: > >> or just build without the dependency in the 1st place like it used to >> be. After all it's not like it adds anything that's essential. > No, including the dependency is the right approach and is consistent with > how Debian has always handled issues like this. We always enable all > optional upstream behavior where possible unless the dependencies are > particularly heavy, My understanding was this is the correct approach unless doing so breaches policy, which this (and apparently many others ) does. I was just trying to point out that there seem to be 3 possible solutions here, one of which nobody else had mentioned: 1) Remove the dependency 2) Fix the policy 3) Blunder on as-is and keep having people point out policy violations.
Tim -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/546465cb.2010...@tee-jay.demon.co.uk
