Re: propose new virtual package: libxaw-dev
On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 01:20:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 04:34:35PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > On 19-Sep-03, 15:25 (CDT), "Craig P. Steffen" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > 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.
I don't think it's wise to rely on the tools being able to decide this based
on priority. It wouldn't be too unusual for another provider of a virtual
package to come along at the same priority, and not conflict with the first,
which would make it ambiguous again.
Of course, for regular depends, it shouldn't much matter. For
build-dependencies, a real alternative should always be specified to get a