Re: "super" pkgs (was Re: Back to RedHat)
Federico Di Gregorio <email@example.com> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 1998 at 11:35:43AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> > Quoting Federico Di Gregorio (firstname.lastname@example.org):
> > > IMHO "super" packages are a very good *local* solution (I use
> > > them too) but for the Offcial Dist I would like to see implemented
> > > something that doesn't require an empty .deb file.
> > Why?
> Because I don't like very much fast-and-ugly hacks. If the .deb is
> required for some reason it is wellcome, if it is only there because
> dpkg requires a valid .deb let's patch dpkg and remove it.
Why would it be an empty .deb? For the local "super" pkg that I do
for my company, I have a few files in /usr/doc/<pkgname>, such as
changelog, descriptoin of the pkg, etc...
Why think of it as an ugly hack? I think "special casing" for super
packages is a much uglyier hack, and that "super" pkgs with real .debs
is actually an elegant, robust, and easy repurposing of existing
.....A. P. Harris...apharris@onShore.com...<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>