On Sun, Jun 02, 2002 at 06:51:42PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote: > On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 11:28:32AM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote: > > > I think the assumption should be that XFree86 will eventually fix up its own > > Xprint server, in which case the X.Org version won't be "required". > > Um, as a potential user (in the my-package-depends-on sense), it would > be nice if there were a virtual packagename (or something similar) > that I could depend on. Right now, the x.org version could provide > that dependency, and later, when/if the XF86 version gets fixed, it > could also provide the same. > Sounds reasonable. Branden can decide if he'd prefer to leave the current xprt to contain the XFree86 binary, or transform it into the virtual package, and I'll fit in accordingly. Seems to me though that xprint would be the appropriate name for the virtual package, in which case xprt could stay as xprt, just changing the Provides: field etc. Drew -- PGP public key available at http://people.debian.org/~dparsons/drewskey.txt Fingerprint: A110 EAE1 D7D2 8076 5FE0 EC0A B6CE 7041 6412 4E4A
Attachment:
pgpTU5a9CyxC1.pgp
Description: PGP signature