Aurélien GÉRÔME <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: > Hi, > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 12:10:51AM +0200, Mario Iseli wrote: >> as described in >> http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/virtual-package-names-list.txt >> I announce here my idea of the virtual package ircd. When I count >> correctly are at the moment 7 different IRC-daemons in Debian and they >> logically conflict with each other. So I would think an official virtual >> package would be a fine solution. There are also IRC services which work >> in general with all ircds, so it would be easier if those packages also >> could only depend on "ircd". > > As the (co-)maintainer of 2 IRCd packages and 2 IRC services packages, > I completely disagree. > > Some IRC servers do *not* conflict, so a virtual package is > unnecessary. The Conflicts and Provides are orthogonal. Certainly, you can conflict with the same package you provide, but this is not needed here. > If they conflict, like ircd-hybrid and dancer-ircd, it is up to the > maintainer to manage the conflicts. Yes, or even better to arrange things such that they no longer conflict. > Some services, if not all, are designed to work on a specific > IRCd. For instance, hybserv is supposed to only run with ircd-hybrid > and dancer-services to only run with dancer-ircd. I do *not* want to > undertake the maintenance of a services package on other IRC servers > that the one for which it is designed. Then in this special case you would continue to depend upon the specific package, rather than the virtual package. Why is this a problem? Regards, Roger -- .''`. Roger Leigh : :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/ `. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ `- GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail.
Description: PGP signature