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)? -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
