On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 03:59:13AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Jul 29, Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote: > > 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 > Formally yes, but I do not think there is a reason for a package to > choose a different default. > > inet-superserver all by itself be okay? > No, but this would be taken care of by > virtual-package-depends-without-real-package-depends (which explains > the part you are missing). Isn't openbsd-inetd priority:standard? That's enough to make the real-package unnecessary, afaik (and that lets the default inetd be changed simply by changing the priorities of the packages, rather than the dependencies of lots of packages). I would've thought the Build-Dependency stuff isn't relevant for inetds. I think policy has had confusing advice on this for a long time now -- ttbomk the only cases where an explicit dependency on a real package is either useful or needed is when all the alternatives can be installed concurrently and are at priority:optional so that dselect and apt can select one easily when there's no hints to be taken from the priority levels; and when consistency is useful for the buildds, for much the same reason. Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature