On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 10:51:21AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > I would like to have flexmem virtual package in official list of such
> > packages. Actually one package is using it. It's obexftp [1].
> No, this is bad idea, at least as far as I can tell from the package
> descriptions.
Doh... that is what I thought first :/
> Virtual packages are NOT for "provides marginally related
> functionality". Virtual packages are for "provides a common interface
> for common functionality that other packages can use interchangeably".
>
> Give me an example how a *package* can usefully depend on "flexmem" and
> then work no matter which of obexftp and siafs gets installed. Compare
> that to how a package can depend on "mail-transfer-agent" and reasonably
> expect to be able to do 'sendmail foo@example.org'.
I won't give you such example. I knew, that this isn't the best idea,
but I just checked how is prepared obexftp, and I tried to do similar
with my package... thus I wanted to "legalize" this existing virtual
package. Now seeing that this is useless and unnecesarry what should
I do? Should I fill the bug against obexftp to not provide such virtual
package? Or just make my own package and don't bother about it?
Thanks for answer.
regards
fEnIo
--
_ Bartosz Feński aka fEnIo | mailto:fenio@o2.pl | pgp:0x13fefc40
_|_|_ 32-050 Skawina - Głowackiego 3/15 - w. małopolskie - Polska
(0 0) phone:+48602383548 | ICQ:46704720 | GG:726362 | IRC:fEnIo
ooO--(_)--Ooo http://skawina.eu.org | JID:fenio@jabber.org | RLU:172001
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature