Tobias, Am Samstag, den 06.02.2021, 12:46 +0100 schrieb Tobias Geerinckx-Rice: > Leo, Ellis, > > Leo Prikler 写道: > > I'd like to say "use your best judgement", but you seem to be a > > little > > too fixated on having a minimal package description (and putting > > minimal effort into it). > > That's uncalled for. It's certainly not the impression I get. Apologies. To me it read like Ellis wanted to avoid making certain substitutions for no apparent reason. I understand, that there may at times be valid concerns w.r.t. having something as input, but rather than talk about specific concerns, we just went in circles over what "optional" means. > > For instance, when the package advertises encryption, while it > > is > > technically optional, shipping it without gpg would be a grave > > oversight! > > Well, that depends. My own rule of thumb for ‘foo supports > encryption!’ is: > > $ gpg > bash: gpg: command not found > $ foo --encrypt > error: whoopsie: BUG in do_foo()+0x4f44! > <16 lines of barftrace> > error: warning: error: No such file or directory. (-ERROR) > $ > > => Make gpg an input, and quick. > > $ gpg > bash: gpg: command not found > $ foo --encrypt > error: gpg not found, please install it. > $ > > => This is totally fine, users who want it know what to do next. Fair enough, but I'd still like to raise a point w.r.t. frequency. If most use cases were to somehow involve encryption, I still think it's better to have it in by default rather than not. Unlike Debian, we don't really have (and probably don't want) a "recommended packages" field in packages. Regards, Leo