On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 12:37:25AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 09:26:24PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 09:24:21PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > The release policy states: "Packages in main cannot require any software
> > > outside of main for
On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 09:26:24PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 09:24:21PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > The release policy states: "Packages in main cannot require any software
> > outside of main for execution or compilation." A recommendation is not a
> > requirement; I
On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 09:24:21PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> The release policy states: "Packages in main cannot require any software
> outside of main for execution or compilation." A recommendation is not a
> requirement; I don't believe that unfulfillable Recommends are not
> release-critical
On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 07:03:50PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Adrian Bunk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041003 17:10]:
> > On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 12:44:21PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > > You certainly have a good point here. I'm not suggesting to remove
> > > Recommends; I think the concept of
Steve Langasek wrote:
> Do the library packages not have dependencies on the data packages? In
> general, it doesn't seem like people are going to select data packages
> for installation by themselves anyway; which of course also means that
> the impact of an incorrect relationship is also reduce
On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 10:23:58AM -0400, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
> Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > FWIW, I agree with Adrian's interpretation [*]. "the packages in
> > main" "must not require a package outside of main" for "execution"
> > (... "Recommends"). While this sentence is fulfilled on i386
On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 03:00:04PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> This package does require access to a debian mirror to build, which
> could potentially be a problem on some autobuilders.
Eh? I tried building this package, and I notice it FTBFS without
internet connection, and would FTBFS if non-us.d.
Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> 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 don't see any problem with making the debian-edu package arch any,
although I've not tried to build
* Adrian Bunk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041003 17:10]:
> On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 12:44:21PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > You certainly have a good point here. I'm not suggesting to remove
> > Recommends; I think the concept of Recommends is good. However, there
> > is also a difference between
On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 12:44:21PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-10-03 03:22]:
> > If you change policy to make Recommends similar to Suggests, you
> > might even remove Recommends from policy since there will no longer
> > be a real difference between Rec
Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> FWIW, I agree with Adrian's interpretation [*]. "the packages in
> main" "must not require a package outside of main" for "execution"
> (... "Recommends"). While this sentence is fulfilled on i386, it is
> violated on !i386 which imho is a Policy violation.
What would
* Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-10-03 03:22]:
> If you change policy to make Recommends similar to Suggests, you
> might even remove Recommends from policy since there will no longer
> be a real difference between Recommends and Suggests.
You certainly have a good point here. I'm not sugg
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 10:39:31AM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
>...
> [*] However, I think Policy should be changed to requre Depends only
> and not Recommends. In the past, dselect would scream loudly about
> Recommends not being fulfilled but these days the tools don't really
> care as much a
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 10:31:06AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-main]
> > 2.2.1 The main section
> > Every package in main and non-US/main must comply with the DFSG
> > (Debian Free Software Guidelines).
> > In addition, the packa
* Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-10-01 10:31]:
> > In addition, the packages in main
> >
> > - must not require a package outside of main for compilation or
> > execution (thus, the package must not declare a "Depends",
> > "Recommends", or "Build-Depends" relationship on a non-m
[Adrian Bunk]
> I read your policy in a way that these things must be fulfilled on
> all architectures.
Yes, I realised that this was your interpretation of the Debian
Policy. My interpretation is different. I'm not quite sure how to
reach we should conclusion on which interpretation is the one
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 10:31:06AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Adrian Bunk]
> > If you can't fulfill a Recommends, that's a violation of section
> > 2.2.1. of your policy.
>
> That is not how I interpret section 2.2.1.
>
> [http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-main]
[Adrian Bunk]
> If you can't fulfill a Recommends, that's a violation of section
> 2.2.1. of your policy.
That is not how I interpret section 2.2.1.
[http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-main]
> 2.2.1 The main section
>
> Every package in main and non-US/main must comply wit
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 08:31:11AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> Can anyone explain to me why the use of recommends: grub is a policy
> violation? I scanned through the policy and failed to find anything
> obvious.
If you can't fulfill a Recommends, that's a violation of section 2.2.1.
of
Can anyone explain to me why the use of recommends: grub is a policy
violation? I scanned through the policy and failed to find anything
obvious.
[Martin Schulze]
> I'd rather investigate why education-common needs to recommend grub
> at all.
>
> The name makes me think that it's a "task" package
On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 12:31:11PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> 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 onl
Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 12:31:11PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> >
> > 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 hav
On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 12:31:11PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
>
> 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?
Espec
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
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-spe
25 matches
Mail list logo
