How tightly should main be self-contained?
Hi guys, Some users have approached me about my packaging on tvtime, which lives in main. It benefits greatly from libdscaler, a contrib package. They are asking that tvtime Suggests libdscaler. I thought that the appropriate thing to do was to have libdscaler Extends tvtime. My impressions of the spirit of Policy 2.2.1 is that main should stand alone, and should not recommend any non-free software. Here is the verbatim text for your inspection. 2.2.1 The main section Every package in main and non-US/main must comply with the DFSG (Debian Free Software Guidelines). In addition, the packages in main * must not require a package outside of main for compilation or execution (thus, the package must not declare a "Depends", "Recommends", or "Build-Depends" relationship on a non-main package), * must not be so buggy that we refuse to support them, and * must meet all policy requirements presented in this manual. I would be glad to change it if there were a fair number of developers who think that suggesting contrib software is fine. Simon
Re: How tightly should main be self-contained?
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 09:40:27AM -0400, Simon Law wrote: > Some users have approached me about my packaging on tvtime, which lives > in main. It benefits greatly from libdscaler, a contrib package. They > are asking that tvtime Suggests libdscaler. I thought that the > appropriate thing to do was to have libdscaler Extends tvtime. > My impressions of the spirit of Policy 2.2.1 is that main should > stand alone, and should not recommend any non-free software. Well, that's correct -- and it /doesn't/ recommend any non-free software, it would merely /suggest/ it. :) With the exception of the recent aptitude bug, this makes all the difference between pulling in non-free packages by default, and informing the user by default that a non-free package is available which complements the chosen package. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpVqMkPvv3uV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: How tightly should main be self-contained?
Hi, Steve Langasek wrote: > With the exception of the recent aptitude bug, this makes all the > difference between pulling in non-free packages by default, and > informing the user by default that a non-free package is available which > complements the chosen package. umm. there are packages in contrib not requiring non-free stuff for them working because they just need it for build.. Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: How tightly should main be self-contained?
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 05:52:36PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote: > Steve Langasek wrote: > > With the exception of the recent aptitude bug, this makes all the > > difference between pulling in non-free packages by default, and > > informing the user by default that a non-free package is available which > > complements the chosen package. > umm. there are packages in contrib not requiring non-free stuff for > them working because they just need it for build.. Yes, of course; point was that suggesting packages outside of main results in main retaining its status as a closure per the default handling of package management tools, whereas recommending packages outside of main violates this closure (regardless of the reason for the package being outside of main). -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpUTFB4VzvpK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: How tightly should main be self-contained?
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 09:40:27AM -0400, Simon Law wrote: > Hi guys, > > Some users have approached me about my packaging on tvtime, which lives > in main. It benefits greatly from libdscaler, a contrib package. They > are asking that tvtime Suggests libdscaler. I thought that the > appropriate thing to do was to have libdscaler Extends tvtime. Packages in main suggesting contrib/non-free or nonexistant packages altogether is fine (afaik). However, does anything even support the Extends field yet, I was under the impression it was still only a human usable field? Chris signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: How tightly should main be self-contained?
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 10:05:17AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 09:40:27AM -0400, Simon Law wrote: > > > Some users have approached me about my packaging on tvtime, which lives > > in main. It benefits greatly from libdscaler, a contrib package. They > > are asking that tvtime Suggests libdscaler. I thought that the > > appropriate thing to do was to have libdscaler Extends tvtime. > > > My impressions of the spirit of Policy 2.2.1 is that main should > > stand alone, and should not recommend any non-free software. > > Well, that's correct -- and it /doesn't/ recommend any non-free > software, it would merely /suggest/ it. :) > > With the exception of the recent aptitude bug, this makes all the > difference between pulling in non-free packages by default, and > informing the user by default that a non-free package is available which > complements the chosen package. Excellent. I shall change this behaviour then. Simon
Re: How tightly should main be self-contained?
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 09:40:27AM -0400, Simon Law wrote: > I would be glad to change it if there were a fair number of > developers who think that suggesting contrib software is fine. Suggesting contrib software is fine. -- - mdz
