Re: Dummy packages and metapackages (call for consistency in the descriptions)
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005, Andreas Tille 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
The principle of least surprise, and the meaning of "meta" are good enough
reasons for me to never have ANYTHING but debian/control in a meta package.
If the package packages something, it is NOT a meta-package, it is a
package. IMHO anyway.
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot