Re: New virtual packages: lv2-plugin and lv2-host
On 21 Nov 2012, at 17:27, Russ Allbery <email@example.com> wrote:
> don't know if Ian is, but I certainly would. We have a bunch of
> existing virtual packages that aren't really useful because they don't
> offer any sort of guaranteed interface, and therefore cannot be
> meaningfully used in package relationships (which is the whole point of a
> virtual package).
Hear hear. We recently hit this problem with vpkg boom-engine and vavoom.
I guess the "interface" that virtual packages provide should be defined somewhere, most likely in policy. Perhaps the .txt file needs to grow into something more structured. I'd be happy to make a start on a proof of concept if you agree. Is it best to take this to -policy list or is -devel ok for now?