Re: Proposal: Virtual package motif, motif-dev
On Sat, 17 Nov 2001, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> From the free software point of view, a build dependency on lesstif would
> be just fine. It is a must in the case a compilation with motif is
> significantly different from a compilation with lesstif (for example, if
> inlined motif code is in the header files, and the package is GPLed).
> In any way, I would not suggest taking motif as the norm here, but lesstif.
> This would imply to name the virtual package, if they are desired, lesstif
> and lesstif-dev (or such). We should seek to refer to free software rather
> than non-free software.
I don´t mind about the name of the beast and I fully agree with your
argument. The real question is whether it would make sense to have such
a virtuel package at all, if it only works for Build-Depends and there
is no real binary compatibility. It would result in
Build-Depends: lesstiff-dev | <lesstif-providing-virtual-development-package>
It would be comfortable for my case but this could cause problems on
autobuilders. So I don´t know if this makes sense at all (at least as
long no binary compatibility is guaranted).