On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 10:31:57AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Raphael Geissert <geiss...@debian.org> writes: > > > I see a couple of issues with the current section 2.2.1 "The main > > archive area:" > > > a) It does not list neither Pre-Depends nor Build-depends-indep. > > b) It does not take into consideration ORed dependencies. > > > Point a) can be fixed by listing those two fields and maybe even toning > > down the statement in parenthesis (e.g. s/thus/e.g./.) > > I think we should keep the parenthetical strong since it's currently the > only place that we say that Recommends from main to non-free is not > allowed, which is otherwise not obvious. > > > The problematic mentioned in b) is that with the current wording one > > could say that the following is not allowed for a package in main: > > > Depends: package-in-main | package-in-non-free > > > Real example: > > Depends: unrar-free | rar > > > (unrar-free is in mai, rar is in non-free.) > > I'm committing the following change for the next release which differs > slightly from Raphael's in that it uses better markup for the field names > (fixing an existing minor inconsistency) and doesn't specify the first > alternative. Packages listing the non-free alternative first are probably > buggy in other ways, and if someone wants to propose wording elsewhere to > deal with that I'd probably second it, but they don't fail this particular > section because they don't require a non-free package to work. > > I think this is informative, not normative, since it just clarifies the > existing requirement and doesn't change the basic requirements, so I'm > going ahead and committing this, but if anyone thinks that's too > aggressive, do speak up.
I disagree that adding an explicit allowance for alternative is not a normative change. The old wording (the package must not declare a "Depends", "Recommends", or "Build-Depends" relationship on a non-main package) is quite clear that alternative are not allowed. Part of the "non-free is not part of Debian" deal was that Debian (main) would not "advertize" non-free software. Allowing non-free software to be listed in the Depends/Recommends field breaks that. In the example: Package: foo Depends: unrar-free | rar rar could Provides: unrar-free and foo would only need to Depends: unrar-free (Or better: unrar-free would be renamed to unrar, rar to rar-nonfree and rar-nonfree would provide unrar) Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
