Colin Watson <cjwat...@ubuntu.com> writes: > Neither of those would help my use case, because it would have the > effect of dragging dpkg-dev into our CD images anyway (we install > Recommends by default just as Debian does, and our tools prefer the > first element in a dependency disjunction if it exists).
> How about: > Depends: libdpkg-perl, bzip2, xz-utils > Suggests: dpkg-dev > or: > Depends: libdpkg-perl > [Recommends: bzip2, xz-utils] > Suggests: dpkg-dev > (Recommends in brackets because libdpkg-perl already recommends those, > so I'm not sure if there's much point in lintian repeating this.) Yeah, one of these look right to me. Given the number of packages in the archive that use bzip2 compression and the small size of the bzip2 package, I'd prefer to have it as a strong dependency. I don't have a similar opinion about xz-utils, since I don't have the impression that it's much used yet, so I'd be okay with leaving that as Recommends. The choice of whether to explicitly state the Recommends should be based on whether Lintian ever invokes programs in it directly or via flags to tar or whether it only invokes it indirectly via libdpkg-perl. IIRC, we invoke it directly via a flag to tar. > Oh, you're right, -q would suppress the warning for unsigned files. I > think my point (a) is still true though. Yeah, we suppress warnings for unsigned source packages since it's very common to check a source package with Lintian in advance of signing 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
