Breaking deps deliberately

[Seth Vidal]

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
> issues.
>
> 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 
packages:

"No broken dependencies are allowed for package or update (including 
updates-testing) for any given release version of the fedora linux 
distribution."

and I think we need to ask if your provenpackager  status should be 
re-evaluated.

-sv