On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 10:39:01AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Charles Plessy wrote: > > dependancy on curl. However, declaring proper dependancies for the > > package is a "should", not a "must", so if a debian developper is free > > to creating uninstallable packages if he fancies this.
Err, what? The RC issues for etch thing lists:
Packages must include a "Depends:" line listing any other
packages they require for operation, unless those packages are
marked "Essential: yes". Packages must include a "Pre-Depends:"
line listing any packages required by their preinst.
so violating that is definitely RC. 3.5 of policy uses "must", not should.
In apt-file's case, the maintainer is claiming the current dependencies
are correct, aiui.
> If you are going to violate a _should_ forever, you better be able to
> provide a full, acceptable technical explanation for your reasons. And for
> the sake of team work, that also means tagging a bug about the issue as
> wontfix, and adding the explanation to the bug logs.
Yes, this RC bug fetish is absurd; we should be spending our time on these
"shoulds", because the "musts" are already fixed... :-/
Cheers,
aj
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
