On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 01:12:59AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: > > As a final suggestion, if there are really that many Makefile.am's in > > the world that will only work with specific versions of automake, > > perhaps we shouldn't have a virtual package at all. The existence of a > > virtual package implies a degree of interchangeability among the > > packages that provide it. If that's just not the case with automake, we > > shouldn't try to advertise it. > > That is a good point. They are really all trying to do the same thing > so I think the virtual package makes sense, at least to let other > packages recommend or suggest automake packages. I do not understand. You appear to be both agreeing with me and contradicting me. I'm saying that a virtual package name for automake* is only useful only if they truly are mostly interchangeable. There seems to be strong evidence that they aren't, and therefore we should probably not have a virtual package for them. -- G. Branden Robinson | "To be is to do" -- Plato Debian GNU/Linux | "To do is to be" -- Aristotle branden@debian.org | "Do be do be do" -- Sinatra http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpA3Np0AhAI1.pgp
Description: PGP signature