Re: stupid dependencies on update-inetd
md@Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Jul 29, Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:
>> Currently, lintian allows any combination of dependencies on the
>> following packages to satisfy the dependency requirement from calling
>> update-inetd in maintainer scripts:
>>
>> update-inetd inet-superserver openbsd-inetd rlinetd
>>
>> I gather update-inetd should be removed from that list. Is it
>> otherwise correct?
> openbsd-inetd and rlinetd should be removed too since they provide
> inet-superserver (unless they are provided as alternatives to the
> virtual package).
So is anything ever valid other than openbsd-inetd | inet-superserver as a
dependency? I keep getting confused on the rules around using virtual
packages. Would rlinetd | inet-superserver be okay? Would
inet-superserver all by itself be okay?
>> Should no package ever depend on update-inetd unless it also provides
>> inet-superserver? If so, I can add a lintian check for that.
> Correct.
Okay, I'll look at doing that.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: