Bug#627083: "recommends: jackd" is a bit weak

[Jonas Smedegaard]

On 11-05-17 at 05:39pm, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> On 2011-05-17 17:24, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > On 11-05-17 at 05:03pm, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> >> currently libjack "recommends" to install jackd, which usually 
> >> evaluates to not automatically install jackd if a package depends 
> >> on libjack.
> > 
> > It seems you have the terms confused, but the actual effect is 
> > correct:
> > 
> > Currently libjack _suggests_ jackd (not recommend).
> 
> correct, sorry for the confusion.

No problem.  Just took me a moment to wrap it around in my head :-)


> > I agree with the logic of that bugreport:
> > 
> > Generally libraries for daemons should *not* recommend their daemon.
> 
> good to know.
> i darkly remember something like this, but cannot find it right now. 
> do you have any links?

I was not referring to Debian Policy, but summarizing the sanity that I 
then afterwards elaborated on a bit.

Sorry, I could have mentioned more clearly that it was my own personal 
reasoning, not a universal truth.

The underlying rules of Suggests and Recommends is, however, quite 
clearly defined in Debian Policy §7.2: 
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#s-binarydeps

There it says that "Recommends:" is for needs at "all but unusual 
installations".

So it is not enough that it is /often/ needed.


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/attachments/20110517/fc999a3e/attachment-0001.pgp>