On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 02:16:14PM +0200, Aigars Mahinovs wrote: > On 29 October 2014 13:40, Neil McGovern <ne...@debian.org> wrote: > >> * if we go the MTA/sh route, then we define lowest common denominator > >> interface of an init system and only init systems providing that > >> (possibly with a systemd-shim) can be init systems in the archive and > >> also applications can only depend on presence of these particular > >> interfaces; > > > > I think there's possibly a slight logic gap here, and that's around > > "applications can only depend on presence of these particular interfaces". > > > > As far as I'm aware, we don't actually say that anywhere. Applications can > > only /rely/ on those interfaces, but it's certainly possible for an > > application to have a Depends: on a particular shell. > > Shell is relatively harmless, imagine if, for example, LibreOffice > suddenly had a dependency on Exim (due to some special email sending > options used in the mail merge feature) and so installing LibreOffice > would also change your MTA. >
Or, if you installed memtest86, and it replaced lilo by installing grub? :) My point is that I believe that we should be clear what we're saying here. I don't think that (as a project) we've said quite so strongly that program X may only use Y features, or are restricted from declaring a Depends: line. That is quite different to the comment above about defining a lowest common denominator, which is not (as far as I can tell) what this GR is about. Neil -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141029144023.gk18...@halon.org.uk