Dimitri John Ledkov <x...@debian.org> writes: > On 5 January 2014 00:07, Nikolaus Rath <nikol...@rath.org> wrote:
>> I think that if a program functionally depends on another, but the >> package does not declare this dependency, then it's a bug. So in this >> context I consider functional dependencies and package dependencies to >> be the same. > Whilst generally a good position to hold, it would mean e.g. for lightdm > to have "Depends: logind | consolekit" even if systemd-activation is > used and sysv-init files are provided it shouldn't have Depends: > sysvinit-core | systemd-sysv, since no packages should declare explicit > dependency on an init-system, it's expected to have one generally. Even > for systemd-ui, i'd expect it to show an error dialog "can't do much > here". We already have a project definition of various types of dependencies that we can use, namely Policy 7.2. My guess is that everyone is okay with packages declaring Recommends on an init system in the sense of that definition. The current debate has been about a Depends relationship in the sense defined in Policy, or at least that's what I think it's about. (Note that nothing in the above paragraph should be taken to mean that I think packages should be free to declare a Recommands in such a way that would cause the system's init system to be changed during an upgrade without coordination with the rest of the project. That's something we may want to do somewhere, carefully, as part of a transition, but it's something we would want to plan as a project, not something that I think it would make sense for individual maintainers to add in isolation. But there are various reasonable ways of avoiding that or coordinating it.) -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
