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

Re: propose new virtual package: libxaw-dev

On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 04:34:35PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 19-Sep-03, 15:25 (CDT), "Craig P. Steffen" <craig@craigsteffen.net> wrote: 
> > 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.
> The fact that something isn't in policy doesn't mean it's not a bug. (Yeah,
> way too many negatives in that sentence, let's try it again:) Not all bugs
> are listed in policy. (There, that's better.) 

This isn't a bug though. The only time it's anything like a problem is
when apt/dselect can't reliably choose a default to satisfy the dependency
because there are two packages that provide the virtual package at the
same (high) priority. This used to be the case with info and emacs at
Standard priority, not sure if it still is.

> Is there some reason that you seriously object to specifying a real
> package before the virtual? Or are you just being difficult?

It's something extra to maintain, and it becomes confusing if the real
package goes away.

> Fix the damn bug and move on.

It's not a bug.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

Australian DMCA (the Digital Agenda Amendments) Under Review!
	-- http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/copyright/digitalagenda

Attachment: pgpalmL_IM7p7.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: