Re: lynx

[Ian Jackson <ian@chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk>]

James A. Robinson writes ("Re: lynx "):
> > I want to have a virtual package for web browsers, I mentioned this
> > before and got no response, in the virtual packages document it says
> > you shouldn't use a virtual package unless it's been approved. I want
> > to use the name 'web-browser', if anyone has any objections speak now
> > or I'm going to assume this is good and just use it.
> 
> I think that "nongraphical-www-browser" and "graphical-www-browser"
> might be good choices for the nongraphical and graphical World Wide
> Web browsers.

Why do we need a special virtual package name for WWW browsers that
don't support graphics ?  Surely we simply need `www-browser' and
perhaps, for some applications, `graphical-www-browswer' ?

Ian.