Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>> Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Proposing to clarify this to "... come from the same source and the
>>> first package directly or indirectly depends on the second ...". For
>>> the intention mentioned in the last sentence ("must be extractable by
>>> mechanical means") it doesn't matter if the dependency is direct or
>>> indirect. If there are other reasons for the stricter direct
>>> dependency, please clarify this as "directly depends".
>> I'm not sure that I see any need for a change here.
> see http://lists.debian.org/debian-java/2008/04/msg00052.html
> > - usr-share-doc-symlink-without-dependency
> > is an explicit policy violation and not allowed.
> and the followups.
Hm, okay. I guess I was always used to thinking about it one way.
> no, this is still for binaries built from the same source, you don't
> need a package manager for this kind of dependency handling.
The problem being solved is, given a random Debian *.deb package, how do I
obtain its copyright? Currently, I may have to locate all *.deb packages
on which it depends with an explicit version number, but that's all.
Weakening this to allow indirect dependencies requires either recursively
resolving all dependencies with explicit versions or trying to track the
binary to a source package, locate the source package, and then retrieve
its other binary packages. Both of those seem like they require more
sophisticated code.
But more to the point, I don't really understand why adding an explicit
dependency is a problem, particularly if all the packages are built from
the same source package.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
