Tim Wootton <t...@tee-jay.demon.co.uk> writes: > My understanding was this is the correct approach unless doing so > breaches policy, which this (and apparently many others ) does.
No, priorities for library packages are basically ignored. They've essentially never changed how we choose compilation options in the past. > I was just trying to point out that there seem to be 3 possible > solutions here, one of which nobody else had mentioned: > 1) Remove the dependency > 2) Fix the policy > 3) Blunder on as-is and keep having people point out policy violations. While 2 is the right course of action, Debian has been doing 3 for the last ten years, so it has the power of precedent. :) -- 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
