Birzan George Cristian wrote: > Hello, I was poking around epic4 the other day and I noticed that, on my > system [1], it and ircII are the only two IRC clients that use the irc > alternative. Now, I've been looking at both the Policy and at some of > the other alternatives on my system and found two rather different > 'reasonings' for using alternatives. > The Policy states that "When several packages all provide different > versions of the same program or file (...)". On the other hand, > x-window-manager, or x-terminal-emulator and a lot of other > alternatives, don't provide different versions of the same program, but > different programs with the same function. > Getting back to the irc alternative, does that mean that all IRC clients > should be registering as an alternative there? Or that only epic(3), > epic4 and ircii should? (I'd go with the former, myself, but mass-filing > without asking first is a Bad Thing [2]) Well, a better question might be what this provides of irc is good for at all, since no packages currently depend on irc, and since irc is not in policy's list of virtual packages. A virtual package is useless without something to reasonably depend on it; how many programs need an irc client, and how many of those can use *any* irc client? Also, it is more usual to append -client to the protocol name as in dhcp-client, dict-client, rsh-client, telnet-client, imap-client. -- see shy jo
Attachment:
pgpmpBWInVcRW.pgp
Description: PGP signature