Re: stupid idea - metapackages
On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 08:32:29PM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> 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.]
When this idea was tossed around for the first time (around Sep 1998) we
settled for profile-* packages.
I still think it's the better solution as it's consistent with the
terms used during installation (minimizes the chance to confuse a first
time user).
Otherwise I propose this FAQ entry:
Q.: Why are the profiles named metapkg in the packaging system after
initial installation ?
A.: Uh, oh, it's just that we wanted to give Debian a more philosophical
touch.
Greetings,
Christian
--
Christian Meder, email: meder@isr.uni-stuttgart.de
What's the railroad to me ?
I never go to see
Where it ends.
It fills a few hollows,
And makes banks for the swallows,
It sets the sand a-blowing,
And the blackberries a-growing.
(Henry David Thoreau)
Reply to: