Re: [RFC] new virtual package names for optical discs burning applications
George Danchev wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 November 2006 19:54, Hubert Chan wrote:
>> 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.
> Such discriminations could be managed at the frontend's level and
> shouldn't be a problem since a decent frontend (i.e. client) might
> pass app-specific options (if there are any and it is really sensible
> to do so) to the low-level binary it spawns to actually do the
> burning.
That's definitely true, but it doesn't help in terms of dependencies.
In this case, a frontend can only depend on those backends that it
actually does support. Having a generic cd-burner pseudopackage doesn't
help ensure that the frontend can actually work with the backend that is
installed. If you install a cd burning backend that your frontend
doesn't know how to deal with, the package is broken.
--
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: