Simon McVittie <s...@debian.org> writes: > On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 at 14:43:36 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Here is an updated version of the patch from earlier in this (now very >> long) thread for discussion. I still think this is consistent with >> previous practice and reasonable documentation of what we're currently >> doing. >> diff --git a/policy.xml b/policy.xml >> index 7ba5fc0..daf4c3c 100644 >> --- a/policy.xml >> +++ b/policy.xml >> @@ -595,7 +595,9 @@ >> <literal>Build-Depends</literal>, >> <literal>Build-Depends-Indep</literal>, or >> <literal>Build-Depends-Arch</literal> relationship on a >> - non-<emphasis>main</emphasis> package), >> + non-<emphasis>main</emphasis> package) unless that package >> + is only listed as a non-default alternative for a package in >> + <emphasis>main</emphasis>, >> </para> >> </listitem> >> <listitem> >> If we still can't reach consensus on this, we should probably bump it >> to the Technical Committee for resolution so that this doesn't just sit >> around unresolved forever. (I feel like that happened at some point in >> the past, but it's been so long that my memory is very hazy.) > A TC resolution in 2014 said that > "Depends: package-in-main | package-in-non-free" is acceptable for main, > and not a Policy §2.2.1 violation. What you're doing here is editing > Policy §2.2.1 to make the 2014 TC's interpretation more obviously the > correct one. Ah, thank you! I did remember correctly that the Technical Committee took this up. > This is certainly not unanimous (the TC vote in 2014 wasn't unanimous > either); but I think there's rough consensus, it matches current > practice, and it's better for Policy to be clear and specific as a > self-contained document, rather than leaving ambiguity in place and > requiring past TC decisions to be consulted for disambiguation. So I > second this patch. Thanks! Yeah, given that it was a TC decision, we definitely should document it. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
