Russ Allbery wrote: > Josh Triplett <josh@freedesktop.org> writes: >> Given that for 99.9% of packages it would constitute a bug to Depends: >> x-window-system-core, you could add it and just let metapackages add >> lintian overrides. That would catch the showeq case. On the other >> hand, that seems highly suboptimal. In the absence of a better way to >> check metapackages differently, this should probably remain unchecked. > > I'd like to get to the point where lintian can detect metapackages, since > they have different rules in a few respects. I kind of wish there were > some more formal way of tagging them. That would be useful for front-ends > like aptitude as well, since the rules about when they should be installed > and removed are a little different. debtags might help here: Package: x-window-system [...] Tag: interface::x11, role::aux:metapackage, special::meta, x11::terminal, x11::window-manager, x11::xserver Package: x-window-system-core [...] Tag: interface::x11, role::aux:metapackage, special::meta, x11::xserver >> Well, at a minimum, Depends or Build-Depends on x-window-system, >> x-window-system-dev, or xorg will always constitute a bug. Adding those >> would help somewhat. > > xorg has the same provision for use with metapackages. The build-depends > part, though, seems uncontroversial, so I'm applying that. Thanks. Also, the same applies to "xorg-dev", which seems like a more likely candidate for errant build-depends. - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature