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

Re: propose new virtual package: libxaw-dev

Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org> wrote:
> 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.

If it actually mattered which one was used, then it shouldn't be using
a virtual package in the first place.

> Of course, for regular depends, it shouldn't much matter.  For
> build-dependencies, a real alternative should always be specified to get a
> consistent build.

Well if you want to get a consistent build, then you should drop the
virtual package altogether.  The fact that it is there at all means
that sooner or later there will be a build where the real package is not
available and it will fall back to the random choice that you're trying
to avoid.

Either it's OK to pick randomly or it's not.  If it is then leave the
virtual package as is, otherwise don't use it.  Putting a real package
in front of it is just covering up the real problem.
Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email:  Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt

Reply to: