Re: Proposal: new virtual packages names
> As we already have several packages allowing to compile C code (gcc,
> altgcc, pgcc), and as we may have some more (egcs ?),
> As we currently have (at least) 2 packages allowing to compile
> Fortran-77 code (namely, g77 and f2c),
> As some packages need to suggest/recommend
> such compilers (cweb, fweb, etc.),
> I suggest to use the following virtual-packages names:
> Maybe this should be extended to other langages as well.
> Any comments ?
What's the goal of the Virtual Packages list? Is it to be as
complete as possible, or just to serve our needs?
I've always thought it to be the second (to be a minimal list that
allows us to specify the dependancies properly). If so, do you know
any packages that would like to depend on "c-compiler", or
If we want a complete list, I'm sure we can come up with much more
examples. And, why stop with languages that have less than two
compilers? Surely a complete list also provides for the possibility
of other compilers to appear? So, if this were the aim, I'm sure
there will be a storm of new vritual packages, that will never be used.
So, to be practical, I'd say: only define a new virtual package
if you can show us why anyone would need it, not when you can
show us that it's possible to create it.
joost witteveen, email@example.com
#what's this? see http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .