Turns out that in https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/61 weak dependencies from Fedora packages to external repositories was banned completely. Our guidelines don't reflect that; they just mention that reverse dependencies are designed for this case without forcing anything. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:WeakDependencies
Obviously our page needs to change. If I can get some free time I'll draft something.
Metadata Update from @tibbs: - Issue assigned to tibbs
Metadata Update from @tibbs: - Issue tagged with: meeting
We discussed this at this weeks meeting (http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2017-06-01/fpc.2017-06-01-16.00.txt):
...there is no #action, but we did agree on it at 17:03:54 in the log.
Metadata Update from @james: - Issue untagged with: meeting - Issue tagged with: writeup
Announcement text:
The guidelines for package dependencies were cleaned up and modified to indicate that all package dependencies MUST be satisfiable within the official Fedora repositories. A statement reiterating that fact was added to the page on weak dependencies as well.
Metadata Update from @tibbs: - Issue untagged with: writeup - Issue tagged with: announce
Metadata Update from @tibbs: - Issue untagged with: announce - Issue close_status updated to: accepted - Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)
While I am not against guidelines, I am wondering how people are supposed to check this... Talking from DNF side, libsolv supports STRONG_RECOMMENDS which makes weak dependencies mandatory but this is not used in dnf, neither exposed..
Of course that's not within the purview of the packaging guidelines or this committee....
That said, if you're typing in a Suggests: line, it's a couple of extra seconds to type dnf info, and not at all that hard to do a whatprovides on every dependency of a package and see where those are coming from.
Login to comment on this ticket.