Breaking deps deliberately
skvidal at fedoraproject.org
Wed May 13 14:14:31 UTC 2009
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Not really.
> The dependency in any case wasn't "broken", it just wasn't satisfied
> by any package in Fedora 10 (although it was by packages in Fedora 11+).
> Someone else already mentioned a theoretical case where a package
> might depend on libdvdcss, which would have both legal and technical
> If you want to say that the repository shouldn't have broken
> dependencies, then it should say so in the packaging guidelines.
Fine - then I'll propose a new rule that will retroactively apply to ALL
"No broken dependencies are allowed for package or update (including
updates-testing) for any given release version of the fedora linux
and I think we need to ask if your provenpackager status should be
More information about the devel