Re: [Debtags-devel] Re: Dummy packages and metapackages (call for consistency in the descriptions)
[originally to debtags-devel, reposted to CCs]
>> Enrico Zini wrote:
Thanks for this, Enrico!
>> * Dummy packages
It may be too late to standardise on "transitional packages", but
I've always thought that was more self-explanatory.
>> * Metapackages
Adeodato Simó wrote:
> Would it be unreasonable to ask that metapackages have to be _empty_,
> i.e., that all their functionality it's in their control file?
Compare gcc, which works similarly to pull in a gcc-*. I recently
found that I had only gcc-* installed on a machine, not gcc itself,
with the result that a user's compiles failed - the /usr/bin/gcc
symlink is in gcc! But gcc doesn't claim to be a "metapackage";
it's a "dependency package". That's hardly self-explanatory, but
I agree that it's a distinction worth making.
Indeed, if dummy transitional packages were all called transitional
packages, we'd be able to distinguish between "dummy" metapackages
and ones that contain files...
Ankh kak! (Ancient Egyptian blessing)