Johannes Meixner composed on 2022-02-16 13:51 (UTC+0100):
only an addedum to emphasize a specific point:
Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar wrote:
* Pkg X needs A to run => Requires ... The 'Requires' case is pretty obvious
This is not the way it is for fonts. Packagers shouldn't be /requiring/ particular font families when any ordinary TTF or OTF font will serve the purpose of putting legible fonts where needed, but that's the way it is (or was until recently with one or more), with: adobe-sourcesanspro-fonts cantarell-fonts google-opensans-fonts google-poppins-fonts hack-fonts noto-sans-fonts raleway-fonts I suppose there may be more fonts "required" by DEs I've never installed. Also, glibc-locale-base gets the job done, yet several packages require glibc-locale.
I think the 'Requires' case is only clear when it is written more to the point:
Pkg X cannot run without A => X Requires A
My point is that "Pkg X needs A to run" could be misunderstood as "normally users of X need A to run X for usual use cases".
But actually X may run even without A (for specific use cases like some minimal use cases in special unusual environments). When in this case X Requires A it is impossible for users to install only X without A without breaking RMP dependencies i.e. it is impossible for users to install only X without A in a clean way regardless that X can run even without A.
Bottom line: What is not strictly required schould not be specified as 'Requires' but only as 'Recommends'.
Amen!!! -- Evolution as taught in public schools is, like religion, based on faith, not based on science. Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata