On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 08:58:22AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 10:38:31AM +0200, Christian PERRIER wrote: > > > (Also, I don't see why you didn't just make libpam-winbind depend on > > > libnss-winbind. #646292 requests the ability to install the NSS modules > > > without the PAM modules, but not vice versa. So why not just make the > > > PAM module package require the NSS module package, and then everything > > > would just work on upgrade and you wouldn't need the NEWS.Debian hack?) > > > Well, how about Recommends? > > > I suspect some people might find use cases for the PAM module without > > the NSS modules though none come actually to my mind. > > I don't think we should cater to such use cases. Indeed, I was unconvinced > that we should split the binary packages at all for this; but having done > so, I see no reason why we care about someone wanting libpam-winbind without > libnss-winbind. If you're doing authentication via winbind, it's silly to > not also do the UID mapping part.
What's wrong with using recommends in this case? This allows users to use libpam-winbind without libnss-winbind (whatever their use case would be), while resolving the issues caused by the split. There is no strong dependency between libpam-winbind and libnss-winbind. It's just that libpam-winbind is usually used together with libnss-winbind. Recommends seems more appropriate in this case. Ivo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
