> "IJ" == Ian Jackson writes:
IJ> That doesn't seem to be an answer to Sean's question. Why do you want
IJ> the question of redundant dependencies dealt with in policy ? What
IJ> bad things are happening, or might be likely to happen, because it is
IJ> not mentioned ?
Because I want to know
OK, I get it. So just like saying
Depends: x, x
or
Depends: x
Depends: x
twice is so ridiculous that it doesn't need to be explicitly mentioned as bad.
BA> As I see it, it is not a bug, but a quality of implementation issue
BA> that could be flagged by lintian, but does not need to appear in policy.
BA> Most of the time it will be an oversight or caused by a change in
BA> external dependencies, so it is worthwhile to notify the maintainer,
BA> bu
SW> Could you explain why you think this is needed, please? What problems
SW> could be caused by a package being listed in more than one field, and
SW> what problems could be caused by forbidding that?
Please have your policy say if it is OK to drive on the right side of
the road or the left side
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
On
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#s-binarydeps
please add an explicit statement:
A package listed in Depends must not also be listed in Suggests or
Recommends.
Or
A package listed in Depends may also be listed in Suggests
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
User browses
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html
User sees
7.2 Binary Dependencies - Depends, Recommends, Suggests, Enhances, Pre-Depends
User would like to make a URL that directly links to that section.
In fact
https://www.
6 matches
Mail list logo
