re:Virtual package: postscript-preview
- To: debian-devel@Pixar.com
- Subject: re:Virtual package: postscript-preview
- From: "brian (b.c.) white" <bcwhite@bnr.ca>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 16:10:00 -0500
- Message-id: <"6201 Fri Jan 12 16:11:13 1996"@bnr.ca>
>AISI, two packages providing the same virtual package don't conflict,
>they augment. ISTM that depends and conflicts are handled other ways.
Great! That's all I wanted to be sure of.
>I'm not sure how vi and emacs might *conflict*. More than the user who
>wants to use it, there are packages that may prefer vi to emacs (for
>instance news readers that use vi as the default editor) but again this
>is a depends issue not a conflicts.
They shouldn't. That's why I used them as an example of how virtual
packages could be bad if virtual packages did conflict.
>BTW, this discussion began when I asked if it was ok to add a new vp to
>the list, rather than the more fundamental underlying principles of the
>provides field. On the other hand I have certainly gained from the
>discussion so far.
I never thought about this aspect of it before. I have two postscript
viewers at work with each having its own advantages. I wanted to make
sure such things would not become mutually exclusive when they did not
need to be.
Brian
( bcwhite@bnr.ca )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not.
Reply to: