On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 01:41:38PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: > > > On 08/12/16 13:35, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 01:02:20PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: [...] > > I don't think that clearly addresses the case of alternative dependencies. > > My packages do not "require" nagios3, although they will work with it > if the user doesn't have Icinga. > > Maybe that clause could be extended to state that packages (may|may > not) include alternative dependencies that are not in main, as long as > at least one of the alternatives is in main.
Not sure what Andrey is supposed to be quoting here, but see https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=681419#275 (Conclusion/ruling at the bottom of that post.) IOW follow Emilios previous advice and you should be fine both practically and policy wise. Regards, Andreas Henriksson
