I agree with Eugene: the spec as presented is flawed. All package management tools (you forgot to list dpkg) treat Depends-satisfaction as an invariant, and there isn't really a compelling reason for this to change. The wording you present is a little confusing, but once you work through it, it's clear that it says "treat Depends on this package like Recommends". Except that there may be an "unless you don't" tagged on.
I actually would prefer a Meta-Depends sort of solution. The "dependencies" we're talking about are really not package dependencies in the normal sense at all, and we shouldn't be confusing them with normal dependencies. IMO, that basic conflation, while a convenient and expedient hack when it was introduced years ago, is the cause of our troubles. Arguably, your Meta-Package proposal really says "change all Depends to Meta-Depends if Meta-Package is true". However, I don't like making the meaning of Depends dependent (hah) on another package field, or overloading the meaning of such a basic part of the package system. For instance, dpkg shouldn't care about metapackages at all (IMO), any more than it cares about Recommends; this is a high-level concept that doesn't have to do with guaranteed relationships among installed packages. I also don't like the definition of Meta-Depends as "like Depends, except <foo>"; I think that the behavior and intention of Meta-Depends are different enough that they should be described explicitly. To summarize: if we're going to introduce a new package relationship, I'd like to see us do it right and up-front rather than "on the cheap" with a hack we'll have to live with for years. (I apologize for not including my own proposal in this mail, due to it suffering from an acute case of non-existence; if I have time I will write one, but please don't count on that what with holidays and real life and all) Cheers, Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org