Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2004 at 11:38:02PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Package: education-common
> > Version: 0.801
> > Severity: serious
> >
> > education-common recommends grub which is available only on i386.
>
> education-common is an arch: all package, therefore, it is technically
> impossible to have an arch-specific Recommends:
>
> Because this bug isn't one used as a reason for britney to keep a package out
> of testing, and the package is otherwise installable, this package is now in
> Sarge.
>
> Release Managers, what do you think of this bug?
>
> 1) Do you agree it is RC?
> - I'm personally tending to say: yes. If a package is installable on an
> arch, it should also be able to fulfil recommends. Post-sarge, all
> packages that are not installable on certain archs should not be in the
> Packages.gz files for their uninstallable archs, or something analogous
> to that
>
> 2) How should it be resolved?
> - Personal favourite, make this package arch:any, and have per architecture
> the needed boot loader for that architecture. I think any
> moderately-complex meta-package that depends on very architecture
> dependent stuff (I.e., hardware specific drivers, kernels and
> bootloaders) should be architecture: any, to be able to have
> architecture-dependent package relations. Maybe this part of
> education-common should be split out into education-boot, so that only
> that package needs to be any, but that's something the debian-edu folks
> should decide.
I'd rather investigate why education-common needs to recommend grub at all.
The name makes me think that it's a "task" package, basically consisting
on dependencies. Does it need to have a dependency to grub at all?
Regards,
Joey
--
This is GNU/Linux Country. On a quiet night, you can hear Windows reboot.
Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.
