Re: New virtual packages: lv2-plugin and lv2-host
Alessio Treglia <email@example.com> writes:
> Why tightening up rules? Policy §3.6 does not pretend packages to meet
> any specs nor comply with common interfaces, it just says "Sometimes
> there are several 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."
The question is: *why* is it useful? What is it useful *for*?
If it's not useful for anything, then we shouldn't incur the overhead of
defining it and expecting maintainers to use it.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>