James Westby dijo [Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 01:44:49AM +0100]:
> > Yet a package of a plugin should surely have a ‘Depends’ relationship to
> > the application package. Adding an ‘Enhances’ relationship seems
> > redundant in that case.
>
> No, there are plenty of packages which depend on another without
> enhancing the latter in a way that is interesting to users. How
> many packages enhance libc6?
>
> Consider a package that can optionally GPG encrypt it's output. It might
> suggest gnupg as an indication that you could install it to get a better
> experience. Does gnupg enhance this package? Does gnupg care? Is it
> going to add an "Enhances" for it?
>
> Now consider the large number of iceweasel extensions that we could have
> in the archive? Would you like to join the mozilla packaging team and
> add a "Suggests" entry for each one that gets uploaded?
>
> I see it as an almost bi-directional relationship, but one that allows
> you to add it to the package that "cares" about it more.
I agree with your analysis. But, if this is the case, the treatment
should be symmetrical as well: If a user has his apt{-get,itude}
configured to auto-install Suggests:, it should also auto-install
reverse-Enhances:, right?
--
Gunnar Wolf • gw...@gwolf.org • (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
