Re: stupid idea - metapackages
Josip Rodin <joy@cibalia.gkvk.hr> writes:
> > what about creating empty packages only to satisfy dependancies and
> > be able to install loosy related set of packages. Metapackage
> > seems to be the right name for such creature ;)
> People already thought of that :) it was discussed on -gtk-gnome list,
> and I think someone is just about ready to do it.
Yes. I'm about to upload (in a few days) the metapkg-sgml package.
I suggest we all follow naming conventions, i.e., 'metapkg-*', so that
it's easy to pick these babies out.
I also suggest the use of equivs... it seems just the ticket. I've
still got to dig into equivs more deeply, specifically, to see how it
interacts with my CVS-based workflow.
[Brandon, this doesn't necessarily apply to you, since your
metapackage is a backwards-compatability metapkg.]
--
.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onShore.com.....<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
Reply to: