Web lists-archives.com

Recommends-If-Manual: ?




>>>>> Russ Allbery <rra@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>>> Ivan Shmakov <ivan@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>>> Adam Borowski <kilobyte@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

 >>> libtasn1-doc: libtasn1-6-dev

 >>> * TRANSITIVELY BAD: probably useful if you do TASN (whatever it is),
 >>> pulled in by a very-widespread library (gnutls)

 >> That’s Abstract Syntax Notation One (or ASN.1), and while I use it
 >> all the time (notation, that is; not this specific library at the
 >> moment), I see no reason for a -dev package to depend on a -doc one
 >> any stronger than with a mere Suggests:.

 > We have some specific Policy about this:

 > https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s-docs-additional

[…]

 > package should declare at most a Suggests on package-doc.  Otherwise,
 > package should declare at most a Recommends on package-doc.

 > If you feel that this should cap the dependency at Suggests across
 > the board, feel free to submit a bug against debian-policy.

	Actually, no, “transitively bad” above seems like a correct
	assessment.

	While I dislike adding any more complexity to APT dependencies,
	can there perhaps be a separate Recommends-If-Manual: list of
	packages to only be installed when the depending package is
	marked as manually installed (as per apt-mark(8); and when
	recommended packages are otherwise considered for installing, as
	per APT::Install-Recommends)?

	To ensure backward compatibility, this condition would have to
	also apply for the packages also in the Recommends: list.
	Moreover, for one release cycle, any packages with
	Recommends-If-Manual: would have to have that same dependencies
	duplicated in Recommends: as well.

[…]

-- 
FSF associate member #7257  58F8 0F47 53F5 2EB2 F6A5  8916 3013 B6A0 230E 334A