Re: [RFC] new virtual package names for optical discs burning applications
George Danchev wrote:
> On Saturday 18 November 2006 11:33, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
[...]
>> If they can't be used with the exact same commandline, there's no sense in
>> providing these virtual packages because the programs need explicit support
>> for each of those programs. (And especially with these writing
>> applications, arcane options need to be specified in many cases, so it's
>> not a case of a common API with some few extra options a backend might use
>> if it has specific support.)
> Fair concern, but this is also true for other already existing virtual
> packages -- editor comes to mind. Isn't it more important what a
> functionality is being provided, and not so important how it is provided.
It depends on what the virtual package is meant for. If it is meant for
users, then command-line compatibility may not be so important (as long
as it has a sane command line). But if it is meant for dependencies
from cd burning frontends, which may need to set all sorts of different
options, then you definitely need command-line compatibility, or else
those tools will break.
--
Hubert Chan <uhoreg@debian.org> -- Jabber: hubert@uhoreg.ca
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA http://www.uhoreg.ca/
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Reply to: