Re: [RFC] DEP-6: Meta-Package debian/control field
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009, David Paleino wrote:
> Daniel Burrows wrote:
>
> > [..]
> > I actually would prefer a Meta-Depends sort of solution. The
> > "dependencies" we're talking about are really not package dependencies
> > in the normal sense at all, and we shouldn't be confusing them with
> > normal dependencies. IMO, that basic conflation, while a convenient
> > and expedient hack when it was introduced years ago, is the cause of
> > our troubles.
>
> Well, we (me and Luca Bruno (not kaeso, the other one)) decided not to use
> Meta-Depends because that would've broken meta-packages installed with
> $non_compliant_tool .
That's why you can use "Breaks: $non_compliant_tool" on new generation
meta-packages. I also agree that the meaning of "Depends" shouldn't change
at all with the introduction of this feature.
We had this discussion recently on a dpkg bug report.
http://bugs.debian.org/548661
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Reply to: