On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 16:12:50 +0200
Laurent Bigonville wrote:
> And in a lot of cases, not having these icons might IMVHO result in a
> degraded user experience.
I think this definition perfectly fits the one of the Recommends
dependency:
The Recommends field should list packages that would be
Hello Laurent, thanks for your explanations!
> I moved the icon theme from a Recommends to a hard Depends because
> at the same time I started removing that dependency from individual
> packages. Adding the icon theme to the individual packages was
> conceptually wrong and error-prone as there is
Le 13/04/17 à 01:22, Pierre Ynard a écrit :
Hello,
Hello,
It's been many months. Any news, or beginning of an answer about this?
Laurent, can you shed some light in this thread on why the hard
dependency would be needed? Do you mind if we remove it?
I fail to see a problem here, libgtk+ 3.
Hello,
It's been many months. Any news, or beginning of an answer about this?
Laurent, can you shed some light in this thread on why the hard
dependency would be needed? Do you mind if we remove it?
Thanks,
--
Pierre Ynard
"Une âme dans un corps, c'est comme un dessin sur une feuille de papier
Hello,
Any news, or beginning of an answer about this?
If there are good reasons justifying the hard dependency, then it
should be easy to bring them up and document them. If there are no
good reasons, then it should be even easier to revert the Depends to a
Recommends; do you want me to submit a
> Violating a should directive is not RC.
Indeed, which is why I added:
> and forcing GNOME and GTK3 dependency creep on GTK2 applications seems
> severe enough in my opinion.
> Besides, it's questionable if the dependency mentioned in this bug
> report even violates this particular section of t
Am 09.08.2016 um 19:30 schrieb Pierre Ynard:
> Hello,
>
> Can I know how serious severity is not appropriate?
>
> Can I know the technical reasons behind the dependency? Can I know how
> they warrant contradicting a "should" directive of the policy?
>
Violating a should directive is not RC.
Bes
Hello,
Can I know how serious severity is not appropriate?
Can I know the technical reasons behind the dependency? Can I know how
they warrant contradicting a "should" directive of the policy?
Can I know what's going to be done about this?
Thank you for your interest.
--
Pierre Ynard
"Une âme
severity 831828 serious
stop
Severity serious for violating Debian policy manual, section 7.2:
> The Depends field should be used if the depended-on package is
> required for the depending package to provide a significant amount of
> functionality.
and forcing GNOME and GTK3 dependency creep on
Package: libgtk2.0-0
Version: 2.24.30-4
Severity: normal
The latest version bumps dependencies on icon packages
hicolor-icon-theme and gnome-icon-theme | adwaita-icon-theme from an
understandable Recommends to a hard Depends. The changelog gives little
explanation about why these would need to be
10 matches
Mail list logo
