Re: default softphone in Debian stretch
Daniel Pocock <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On 15/01/16 14:20, Bas Wijnen wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:08:35AM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>>> If there are meta-packages (e.g. sip-client, xmpp-client), should
>>> any softphone be able to assert that it provides sip-client? Or
>>> should there be some quality threshold?
>> I think there should be a threshold. Failing to meet that should
>> be ground for an RC bug. In other words, the package can be in
>> unstable, but not in testing (or stable).
> Is this approach used in a formal manner with any other sets of
> packages, meta-packages or tags in Debian?
No, I don't think we have some sort of "quality" level for providing a
virtual package. Just take a look at www-browser which is provided by
packages not getting any security updates at all or implementing SSL in
very broken ways (I remember reading about browsers that would just
accept any certificate silently).