Re: Virtual Packages proposal
On Fri, 20 Feb 1998, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 1998 at 01:03:38PM +0100, Javier Fernandez-Sanguino Pen~a wrote:
> > As it is the proposal now is to add:
> >
> > vrml-browser Same as www-browser but for vrml (wrl) files.
> > Will be used by the packages vrweb and vrwave (which I
> > maintain)
>
> But as I asked, does anything need to DEPEND on vrml-browser?
> It's all very well to provide something but something else has
> to Depend on it for it to be useful.
Not yet, but that doesn't mean it is not useful, as I said before
we can look ahead into the future a bit, can't we? Not standarizing (is
that right?) now would make that when these virtual-packages need to be
used different maintainers would use different 'Recommends:' or 'Depends:'
since they don't have anything else to hold on to.
>
> > jvm1.0 Java virtual machines (I agree that programs for jvm1.0
> > jvm1.1 run with jvm1.1, but not viceversa)
>
> I thought we already had java-virtual-machine. guavac suggests
> java-virtual-machine, for example. I think I found some package which
> provided it when I put in the suggests.
I don't see in the *official* virtual package list (correct me if
I'm wrong) java-virtual-machine.
Umm.. I also found a package in 'contrib' that provides vrml :)
But haven't filed a bug report yet since its one of the packages I intend
to maintain (vrweb).
> > jdk1.0 Java compiler
> > jdk1.1
>
> ANy need to depend: on jdk1.0 or jdk1.1 yet though?
No AFAIK but my reason to propose it is the same as for
vrml-browser, don't take me wrong, I will not propose virtual packages of
anything which "might" be useful, but Java and VRML are standards that
will be part of our future, as read by on techninal reports.
> >
> Hamish
> --
Javi
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: