[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Breaking deps deliberately

Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 03:27:42PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> Someone could easily do the same thing in future.  If broken
>> dependencies are so unacceptable, then it should be added to the
>> packaging guidelines.
> I added this as an agenda item for the FESCo meeting:
> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/147
>   "Meeting agenda item: No broken dependencies should be a packaging guideline"
Additions to the Packaging Guidelines are a Fedora Packaging Committee
item, not FESCo.  However, this sounds a bit more like a Fedora Policy
that FESCo would decide rather than a Packaging Guideline.  And in fact,
there's already a variety of FESCo policies that address this issue as
pointed out by others on this thread.  So your next step depends on
whether you want it to be in the actual Guidelines or just want it
spelled out clearer in FESCo policy.

If you want a Guideline... I think that no broken dependencies is a
fairly obvious thing.  What's the rationale for including it in the
Guidelines?    Do any other distributions have it in their Guidelines?
Do any other distributions purposefully add broken dependencies to their
repositories (So that you wouldn't be able to install it without
pointing at a second source for a package)?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]