Re: Proposed mass bug filing: use and misuse of dbus-launch (dbus-x11)
On Thu, 2016-07-28 at 15:25 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 at 08:33:21 -0400, Marvin Renich wrote:
> > Do you mean metapackage or virtual package? Wouldn't a virtual
> > package
> > be exactly the right thing for this? Then dbus-user-session and
> > dbus-x11 would each "Provides: dbus-session" and no additional real
> > package is required. Maybe I do not understand what is being
> > suggested.
> If we want to avoid mass package changes when the preferred way to
> a session bus changes, then either it has to be a real package, or we
> have to have a real dbus-default-session-bus package instead.
> When there are two or more providers for a virtual package,
> packages need to depend on a real package, with a virtual package as
> an alternative. If we just had
It is sufficient to ensure there is only one provider of the "default"
package. This is currently done for the default MTA: packages needing a
MTA depend on "default-mta | mail-transport-agent". The only provider
(in Debian) of default-mta is exim4-daemon-light, so exim4 is selected
by default if no other MTA is installed.