On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com> wrote: > On 16 July 2013 16:04, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >> Agreed. It is surprising that we allowed ourselves to >> break the most common target this way. > > It isn't broken, we just don't list one of the prerequisites in the > installation docs.
In what way is this different from "broken"? If it is inexplicably unusable, it _is_ broken.
