[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: desire to add two virtual packages

On 04-Dec-98, 10:09 (CST), Ossama Othman <othman@astrosun.tn.cornell.edu> wrote: 
> The package I created for TAO supplies tao_idl.  Should I just make it a
> "real" package using the same control file I use for libTAO?

Hmm, I don't know enough about building multiple binary packages from
the same source, but I believe that is correct -- you add additionaly
binary sections to the control file, and extend the rules file
appropriately. You could ask on debian-mentor (or look in the archives
-- I know it's been discussed previously), or look at another package
that produces multiple binaries.

Anyway, the point of a virtual package is to provide a name that other
packages can use for Depends:, Recommends:, etc., instead of having to
list explicit package names. It only makes sense when there are multiple
packages providing essentially the same programs - for example, nawk and
gawk. Since tao_idl is only going to be provided by one package, there's
no point in creating a virtual package. 

Now, it *could* be argued that we ought to have virtual packages for
corba_orb and corba_dev or some such, but orb packages aren't really
interchangeable (yet!), so there no real benefit yet.

As far as the ACE/TAO gperf goes, I think I'd just wrap it up in the
libTAO-dev package along with the tao_idl compiler, and stick in
/usr/lib/tao (or some such -- don't assume that I know the correct
location!) so that only the tao_idl compiler knows where to find it.

I don't see any real point in seperating out tao_idl and gperf from the
development libraries and include files, as they are pretty much useless
without each other.


Reply to: