Bug#685746: Seeking seconds for a patch to deal with remaining issues in this old bug
control: tag -1 -patch Hello, On Mon 23 Jul 2018 at 08:09AM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > It comes down to what "might not work" means. > > For example, "might reformat your hard drive" is an example of "might not > work". > > This might seem pedantic, but it really isn't: I've seen packagers argue > that they are not responsible for what happens on user systems that do not > install Recommends before. On Mon 23 Jul 2018 at 05:42PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: > I'm not convinced this is an improvement FWIW. This seems to discount > plausibly valid bugs out of hand without defining acceptable failure modes. Thank you both for your replies. I agree. My patch is not an improvement. I would like to blame DebCamp jetlag for how halfbaked my attempt was :) I will think harder about what we can do about this bug. -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#685746: Seeking seconds for a patch to deal with remaining issues in this old bug
On 07/23/2018 04:45 AM, Sean Whitton wrote: > control: tag -1 +patch > > Hello, > > Seeking seconds: > > diff --git a/policy/ch-relationships.rst b/policy/ch-relationships.rst > index 1eaa422..03f5918 100644 > --- a/policy/ch-relationships.rst > +++ b/policy/ch-relationships.rst > @@ -228,6 +228,10 @@ The meaning of the five dependency fields is as follows: > The ``Recommends`` field should list packages that would be found > together with this one in all but unusual installations. > > +It is not a bug if some things in the package do not work properly > +because the user has not installed packages listed in > +``Recommends``. > + > ``Suggests`` > This is used to declare that one package may be more useful with one > or more others. Using this field tells the packaging system and the > I'm not convinced this is an improvement FWIW. This seems to discount plausibly valid bugs out of hand without defining acceptable failure modes. Cheers, Julien
Bug#685746: Seeking seconds for a patch to deal with remaining issues in this old bug
Sean Whitton wrote: > On Sun 22 Jul 2018 at 11:12PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > > That would mean Recommends is effectively Depends. Is it really what you > > intend? > > I don't follow. > > My patch says that /some/ functionality might not work without the > recommends. > It comes down to what "might not work" means. For example, "might reformat your hard drive" is an example of "might not work". This might seem pedantic, but it really isn't: I've seen packagers argue that they are not responsible for what happens on user systems that do not install Recommends before. Jonathan
Bug#685746: Seeking seconds for a patch to deal with remaining issues in this old bug
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:45:31AM +0800, Sean Whitton wrote: > control: tag -1 +patch > > Hello, > > Seeking seconds: Seconded. > > diff --git a/policy/ch-relationships.rst b/policy/ch-relationships.rst > index 1eaa422..03f5918 100644 > --- a/policy/ch-relationships.rst > +++ b/policy/ch-relationships.rst > @@ -228,6 +228,10 @@ The meaning of the five dependency fields is as follows: > The ``Recommends`` field should list packages that would be found > together with this one in all but unusual installations. > > +It is not a bug if some things in the package do not work properly > +because the user has not installed packages listed in > +``Recommends``. > + > ``Suggests`` > This is used to declare that one package may be more useful with one > or more others. Using this field tells the packaging system and the > > -- > Sean Whitton Regards, Andreas Henriksson
Bug#685746: Seeking seconds for a patch to deal with remaining issues in this old bug
Hello, On Sun 22 Jul 2018 at 11:12PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > That would mean Recommends is effectively Depends. Is it really what you > intend? I don't follow. My patch says that /some/ functionality might not work without the recommends. -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#685746: Seeking seconds for a patch to deal with remaining issues in this old bug
Sean Whitton wrote: Seeking seconds: > > diff --git a/policy/ch-relationships.rst b/policy/ch-relationships.rst > index 1eaa422..03f5918 100644 > --- a/policy/ch-relationships.rst > +++ b/policy/ch-relationships.rst > @@ -228,6 +228,10 @@ The meaning of the five dependency fields is as > follows: > The ``Recommends`` field should list packages that would be found > together with this one in all but unusual installations. > > +It is not a bug if some things in the package do not work properly > +because the user has not installed packages listed in > +``Recommends``. > That would mean Recommends is effectively Depends. Is it really what you intend? Common practice is for a package to still function ok without Recommends, for example by printing an appropriate error message when the user invokes missing functionality. Jonathan
Bug#685746: Seeking seconds for a patch to deal with remaining issues in this old bug
control: tag -1 +patch Hello, Seeking seconds: diff --git a/policy/ch-relationships.rst b/policy/ch-relationships.rst index 1eaa422..03f5918 100644 --- a/policy/ch-relationships.rst +++ b/policy/ch-relationships.rst @@ -228,6 +228,10 @@ The meaning of the five dependency fields is as follows: The ``Recommends`` field should list packages that would be found together with this one in all but unusual installations. +It is not a bug if some things in the package do not work properly +because the user has not installed packages listed in +``Recommends``. + ``Suggests`` This is used to declare that one package may be more useful with one or more others. Using this field tells the packaging system and the -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
