On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 16:30:29 +0200 Ole Streicher <olebole@debian.org> wrote: > There are no things "that the metapackage is for": The package just > collects a number of programs that belong to the same author and are The "same author" bit is a bit odd, there needs to be some common purpose in aggregating a list of packages into a metapackage in the first place but that's based on function, not authorship. > usually installed together. There is no particular requirement to have > any of them installed; therefor I don't want to make any single > program as "Depend". I'd still use Depends in the metapackage. e.g. foo-server has lots of strict dependencies without which is simply won't install or start. foo-client has less dependencies and a few Recommends because the client can work for a range of usecases and not everyone needs every use case. For those people who *do* want the assurance that every possible use case can work, then a foo metapackage would Depend on foo-server and foo-client and *all* of the Recommends of foo-client, possibly including even a few of the Suggests of foo-client. > Other packages will never depend on this metapackage; they will rather > depend on the individual programs. > > Or am I abusing the metapackage system here? Different use cases, I think. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpqMGrc1B_hO.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature