Re: Dummy packages and metapackages (call for consistency in the descriptions)

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Cc: Debian Developers <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>
Subject: Re: Dummy packages and metapackages (call for consistency in the descriptions)
From: Andreas Tille <tillea@rki.de>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 17:23:20 +0100 (CET)
Message-id: <[🔎] Pine.LNX.4.62.0510301722160.7996@wr-linux02>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20051029021844.GA16866@chistera.yi.org>
References: <[🔎] 20051028214137.GA26570@marvin.casa> <[🔎] 20051029021844.GA16866@chistera.yi.org>

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005, Adeodato [iso-8859-1] 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?


As long as you give no reasons to do so I would in deed call it
unreasonable.

Kind regards

           Andreas.

--
http://fam-tille.de

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Dummy packages and metapackages (call for consistency in thedescriptions)
  - From: Adeodato Simó <asp16@alu.ua.es>
- Re: Dummy packages and metapackages (call for consistency in the descriptions)
  - From: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org>

References:
- Dummy packages and metapackages (call for consistency in the descriptions)
  - From: Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org>
- Re: Dummy packages and metapackages (call for consistency in the descriptions)
  - From: Adeodato Simó <asp16@alu.ua.es>