Re: "super" pkgs (was Re: Back to RedHat)
On Tue, Sep 29, 1998 at 09:11:20AM +0200, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 1998 at 07:58:19PM -0400, Adam P. Harris wrote:
> > Federico Di Gregorio <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > > On Mon, Sep 28, 1998 at 11:35:43AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> > > > Quoting Federico Di Gregorio (email@example.com):
> > > > > 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")?
it would be nice to have an app that to custom build policy compliant custom super packages.
some kind of super package editor ?