[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: New virtual packages: lv2-plugin and lv2-host

> Why tightening up rules? Policy =C2=A73.6 does not pretend packages
> to meet= any specs nor comply with common interfaces, it just says
> "Sometimes there are severa= l packages which offer more-or-less the
> same functionality. In this case, it'= s useful to define a virtual
> package whose name describes that common functionality."

Like all of our policy wording this should be read and interpreted
with full understanding of what's goign on.

> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Ian Jackson
> <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> > Do users specifically find LV2 plugin packages by name and install
> > them ?  How does it help the user to have an arbitrary "lv2-host"
> > installed too ?
> Actually I receive lots of mails from users asking me questions like
> "How c= ould I find an exhaustive list of LV2 toys currently
> provided by Debian?", "Does= the X sequencer support LV2
> plugins?". So, I think we'd do a good service to ou= r users by
> grouping audio hosts and plugins by features they do provide. [1]

Isn't this something which would better be dealt with by debtags ?
The purpose of virtual packages is dependency resolution, not user
package search.  For a virtual package to be useful, it must be
sensible (useful to the user) for a depending package, when installed
(either because of another dependency, or because a user found the
package some other way), to pull in _any one_ of the providers of
virtual package.

So I'm afraid I still don't understand how this virtual package would
help improve the dependency resolution.


Reply to: