* Branden Robinson (branden@debian.org) wrote: > 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's a valid concern, but I disagree. > I'm saying that a virtual package name for automake* is only useful only > if they truly are mostly interchangeable. I guess it depends on what you mean by interchangeable. They are all compatible to some degree and perform the same sort of task. I guess its a bit like the mail-transport-agent, they all perform the same sort of task (delivering mail) but they aren't compatible with each other (different features, different configs). > There seems to be strong evidence that they aren't, and therefore we > should probably not have a virtual package for them. What do others think? Is this virtual package useful, or pointless? -- Eric Dorland <dorland@lords.com> ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: hooty@jabber.com 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Attachment:
pgpUkPt93EOph.pgp
Description: PGP signature