Re: "super" pkgs (was Re: Back to RedHat)
On Mon, Sep 28, 1998 at 07:58:19PM -0400, Adam P. Harris wrote:
> Federico Di Gregorio <fog@pcamb6.irfmn.mnegri.it> writes:
> > On Mon, Sep 28, 1998 at 11:35:43AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> > > Quoting Federico Di Gregorio (fog@pcamb6.irfmn.mnegri.it):
> > > > 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...
Hey! That's a *very very very* good reason to have real .debs. Just the
changelog file is enough for me and we can include lots of other thing.
I was pretty dumb when I wrote the past mails... 8(
Just another comment: how can we avoid super-packages pollution? I mean
who will build the official super-packages? How can we avoid to have 10+
"c-devel" super-packages with different contents? How will apt recognize
super-packages when the user wants to show only them? What about a different
section (e.g., "super")?
I am hoping I made smarter comments than the last one! Ciao, f
>
> 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
> infrastructure.
>
> .....A. P. Harris...apharris@onShore.com...<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>
Reply to: