Should pure virtual dependencies be allowed?

[Daniel Schepler <schepler@math.berkeley.edu>]

I'm forwarding this message to the list with the permission of the
author, since it relates to the recent thread about mass filing of
bugs regarding libxaw-dev.

--- Begin Message ---

• To: Daniel Schepler <schepler@Math.Berkeley.EDU>, 169969@bugs.debian.org
• Subject: Re: Bug#169969: acfax: Pure virtual build-depends on libxaw-dev
• From: Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org>
• Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 23:50:05 +1100
• Message-id: <20021121125005.GA3482@silly.cloud.net.au>
• In-reply-to: <87of8jh1yq.fsf@frobnitz.ddts.net>
• References: <87of8jh1yq.fsf@frobnitz.ddts.net>

On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 10:27:25PM -0800, Daniel Schepler wrote:
> Package: acfax
> Severity: normal
> 
> This package Build-Depends on libxaw-dev, which is wrong because it's
> a pure virtual package.  You need to specify a specific version of
> libxaw-dev to be used.

Why do I need to specify a specific version? Which part of policy says
so?

The same applies to normal depends. Some people believe that any
dependency on a virtual package must be expressed as "a real package |
the virtual package". However this is a workaround for a limitation of
apt-get (that it can't choose a default for a virtual package). The
correct solution is to fix the package management tools, not to kludge
around the problem. Debian does not have a history of kludging around
the problems so let's not start now.

Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@debian.org> <hamish@cloud.net.au>

--- End Message ---

-- 
Daniel Schepler              "Please don't disillusion me.  I
schepler@math.berkeley.edu    haven't had breakfast yet."
                                 -- Orson Scott Card