[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: propose new virtual package: libxaw-dev

Hash: SHA1

>> 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.

Craig Steffen

- -- 
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
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)


Reply to: