Debian Bug report logs - #616462
debian-policy: clarify wording of parenthetical in section 2.2.1

version graph

Package: debian-policy; Maintainer for debian-policy is Debian Policy List <debian-policy@lists.debian.org>; Source for debian-policy is src:debian-policy.

Reported by: Marvin Renich <mrvn@renich.org>

Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 16:51:06 UTC

Owned by: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>

Severity: normal

Merged with 587279

Found in versions 3.8.4, debian-policy/3.9.1.0

Fix blocked by 681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main

Reply or subscribe to this bug.

Toggle useless messages

View this report as an mbox folder, status mbox, maintainer mbox


Report forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Policy List <debian-policy@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#616462; Package debian-policy. (Fri, 04 Mar 2011 16:51:09 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Marvin Renich <mrvn@renich.org>:
New Bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to Debian Policy List <debian-policy@lists.debian.org>. (Fri, 04 Mar 2011 16:51:09 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Marvin Renich <mrvn@renich.org>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: debian-policy: clarify wording of parenthetical in section 2.2.1
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 11:35:43 -0500
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.9.1.0
Severity: wishlist

As suggested in thread on debian-devel (starting at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/03/msg00202.html), change the
wording of the parenthetical in the first bullet of section 2.2.1 from

...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)

to

...the packages in main

   • must not require a package outside of main for compilation or
     execution (thus, all declared "Depends", "Recommends", and
     "Build-Depends" relationships must be satisfiable with only
     packages in main)

...Marvin

-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'squeeze-updates'), (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'stable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.37-2-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

debian-policy depends on no packages.

debian-policy recommends no packages.

Versions of packages debian-policy suggests:
ii  doc-base                      0.9.5      utilities to manage online documen

-- no debconf information




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Policy List <debian-policy@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#616462; Package debian-policy. (Fri, 04 Mar 2011 17:45:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Policy List <debian-policy@lists.debian.org>. (Fri, 04 Mar 2011 17:45:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #10 received at 616462@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>
To: Marvin Renich <mrvn@renich.org>, 616462@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#616462: debian-policy: clarify wording of parenthetical in section 2.2.1
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 09:36:22 -0800
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 11:35:43AM -0500, Marvin Renich wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.9.1.0
> Severity: wishlist

> As suggested in thread on debian-devel (starting at
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/03/msg00202.html), change the
> wording of the parenthetical in the first bullet of section 2.2.1 from

> ...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)

> to

> ...the packages in main
> 
>    • must not require a package outside of main for compilation or
>      execution (thus, all declared "Depends", "Recommends", and
>      "Build-Depends" relationships must be satisfiable with only
>      packages in main)

Although I agree with you that this parenthetical has been mistaken for
normative language and it should be clarified with regards to intent, the
clarification you've suggested is OTOH weaker than what I understand the
common rule to be.  If the goal is to make sure installing a package in main
doesn't automatically pull in a package from non-free, then the main
alternative must be listed first.

Maybe "must be satisfied by default with only packages in main" expresses
this?

Or maybe this is splitting hairs and I shouldn't worry too much about a
non-normative parenthetical :)

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Policy List <debian-policy@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#616462; Package debian-policy. (Fri, 04 Mar 2011 18:21:16 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Marvin Renich <mrvn@renich.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Policy List <debian-policy@lists.debian.org>. (Fri, 04 Mar 2011 18:21:16 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #15 received at 616462@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Marvin Renich <mrvn@renich.org>
To: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>
Cc: 616462@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#616462: debian-policy: clarify wording of parenthetical in section 2.2.1
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 12:57:53 -0500
* Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> [110304 11:36]:
> Although I agree with you that this parenthetical has been mistaken for
> normative language and it should be clarified with regards to intent, the
> clarification you've suggested is OTOH weaker than what I understand the
> common rule to be.  If the goal is to make sure installing a package in main
> doesn't automatically pull in a package from non-free, then the main
> alternative must be listed first.
> 
> Maybe "must be satisfied by default with only packages in main" expresses
> this?
> 
> Or maybe this is splitting hairs and I shouldn't worry too much about a
> non-normative parenthetical :)

Not being a DD, much less a policy maintainer, I didn't want to overstep
my bounds.  :-)  There was at least one person in that thread who
thought non-main dependencies could be listed first.  However, I agree
with you, and would prefer to mandate that the first alternative
explicitly be the default and that this be required to be in main.

...Marvin





Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Policy List <debian-policy@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#616462; Package debian-policy. (Fri, 04 Mar 2011 18:39:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Policy List <debian-policy@lists.debian.org>. (Fri, 04 Mar 2011 18:39:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #20 received at 616462@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>
To: Marvin Renich <mrvn@renich.org>, 616462@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#616462: debian-policy: clarify wording of parenthetical in section 2.2.1
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 10:36:15 -0800
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 12:57:53PM -0500, Marvin Renich wrote:
> * Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> [110304 11:36]:
> > Although I agree with you that this parenthetical has been mistaken for
> > normative language and it should be clarified with regards to intent, the
> > clarification you've suggested is OTOH weaker than what I understand the
> > common rule to be.  If the goal is to make sure installing a package in main
> > doesn't automatically pull in a package from non-free, then the main
> > alternative must be listed first.

> > Maybe "must be satisfied by default with only packages in main" expresses
> > this?

> > Or maybe this is splitting hairs and I shouldn't worry too much about a
> > non-normative parenthetical :)

> Not being a DD, much less a policy maintainer, I didn't want to overstep
> my bounds.  :-)  There was at least one person in that thread who
> thought non-main dependencies could be listed first.  However, I agree
> with you, and would prefer to mandate that the first alternative
> explicitly be the default and that this be required to be in main.

Debian Policy is a process that's open to all - please don't be shy about
proposing changes that you think are needed, the worst that will happen is
that people will tell you no. :)

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Forcibly Merged 587279 616462. Request was from Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> to control@bugs.debian.org. (Sat, 05 Mar 2011 00:27:05 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Removed tag(s) patch. Request was from Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> to control@bugs.debian.org. (Mon, 04 Apr 2011 02:51:07 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Added indication that bug 616462 blocks 677900 Request was from David Bremner <bremner@debian.org> to control@bugs.debian.org. (Sun, 17 Jun 2012 18:42:04 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Severity set to 'wishlist' from 'normal' Request was from David Bremner <bremner@debian.org> to control@bugs.debian.org. (Sun, 17 Jun 2012 18:42:05 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Severity set to 'normal' from 'wishlist' Request was from David Bremner <bremner@debian.org> to control@bugs.debian.org. (Sun, 17 Jun 2012 19:12:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Added blocking bug(s) of 616462: 681419 Request was from Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> to control@bugs.debian.org. (Fri, 13 Jul 2012 04:22:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Removed indication that bug 616462 blocks 677900 Request was from David Bremner <bremner@debian.org> to control@bugs.debian.org. (Sun, 05 Aug 2012 18:48:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Added tag(s) pending. Request was from David Bremner <bremner@debian.org> to control@bugs.debian.org. (Sun, 05 Aug 2012 18:48:04 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Removed tag(s) pending. Request was from David Bremner <bremner@debian.org> to control@bugs.debian.org. (Sun, 05 Aug 2012 19:03:09 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.


Debian bug tracking system administrator <owner@bugs.debian.org>. Last modified: Thu Apr 17 04:59:56 2014; Machine Name: buxtehude.debian.org

Debian Bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.