Raphael Hertzog wrote: > That's why it was discussed there. Otherwise it might well be the case > that it would have been discussed on -devel.
Wait, how is that relevant at all? Is the point that the policy manual is saying what you should do in the default case, and this is a special one? The reason I care is that almost every time I have seen pre-depends proposed on debian-devel, one of two things happened: * no consensus emerged about whether it's a good idea, which was a good thing; or * no consensus emerged about whether it's a good idea, which was a bad thing. In the former case, the outcome is good. In the latter, the outcome bad. For example, as far as I can tell, this is why findutils in sid does not have selinux support. The one exception I know of was adding pre-depends on xz-utils to dpkg. There was indeed a consensus then. > BTW, that section say "should not" and not "must not"... you must allow > some flexibility in the interpretation of the sentence. You seem to be > very keen of interpreting it as a hard rule. Well, I want to interpret it as meaning *something* --- though I'm not filing RC bugs or anything. I had thought that the general rule is that violating a policy "should" is always a bug (either in your package or in policy), though not necessarily an important one. Do you disagree with that? A bit confused, Jonathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110330182604.GA13440@elie
