Re: propose new virtual package: libxaw-dev
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> One of the bugs against it, 170005, says that
>> depending on the virtual package "libxaw-dev" is wrong.
>Yes; dependencies on pure virtual packages with no preceding real
>alternative are wrong.
Why is this wrong? The current Debian Policy Manual section 3.6 states in
"The packages with this particular function will then provide the virtual
package. Thus, any other package requiring that function can simply depend on
the virtual package without having to specify all possible packages
Also, section 7.4 says:
"As well as the names of actual ("concrete") packages, the package
relationship fields Depends, Recommends, Suggests, Enhances, Pre-Depends,
Conflicts, Build-Depends, Build-Depends-Indep, Build-Conflicts and
Build-Conflicts-Indep may mention "virtual packages". "
As far as I can tell, those two sections say that depending on a virtual
package is fine.
>Packages must always delcare a dependency on a real package before a
>pure virtual one as an alternative. E.g.:
The last paragraph of DPM sec 7.4:
"If you want to specify which of a set of real packages should be the default
to satisfy a particular dependency on a virtual package, you should list the
real package as an alternative before the virtual one."
This doesn't say "must declare a dependency on a real package". If that's
somewhere else in the policy, then please let us know.
I don't mean to directly contradict you, justrying to sort out what the
actual policy is.
public key available at http://www.craigsteffen.net/GPG/
current goal: use a CueCat scanner to inventory my books
career goal: be the first Vorlon Time Lord
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----