Re: Bug#686207: [LCFC] templates://lazarus/{lcl-utils.templates,control}.in
Paul Gevers wrote:
> I like to contribute to the description of this package, but don't have
> the time to do that right now. Maybe I can have a look next week if the
> review isn't finished by than.
Official reviews allow for a lot more time than you might have guessed
from my hasty replies.
>>>> Package: lcl-qt4${PACKAGESUFFIX}
>> [...]
>>>> This package contains the LCL and components Qt based backend.
>>>> Actually this is an empty package but will not be in the future.
>> where it now occurs to me that "actually" is probably a
>> false-friendism for "currently". To make it possible to add on the
>> extra layer of dependency-packageness later, I'll suggest:
>>
>> This is a placeholder package for the Qt version of the LCL, which
>> currently just depends on the GTK version.
>
> If I am not very much mistaken, the lcl-qt4 package is no placeholder
> any more, so it needs proper updating.
Presumably to something that's just like the -gtk ones with a minor
search-and-replace.
>>>> Package: lazarus
>> [...]
>>>> This dependency package depends on all packages needed to have a
>>>> typical Lazarus installation.
>> Er, but lazarus${PACKAGESUFFIX} claims to do that. This does
>> something more complicated:
>>
>> This dependency package always depends on the latest available
>> version of the metapackage pulling in all the packages needed to have
>> a typical Lazarus installation.
>
> dependency package -> metapackage?
There are several different kinds of metapackage: the ones that pull
in foo AND bar AND baz (usually because they form a suite), the ones
that pull in foo OR bar OR baz (often GNOME-versus-KDE alternatives),
and the ones that pull in foo23 (because that's the current version of
foo).
Some of the packages in this set are "suite" packages, some are
"alternative" packages, and a whole set of them are "current version"
metapackages that pull in other metapackages. Things can get really
confusing (especially since Debian has no standard vocabulary for
describing this sort of situation).
> And I think it depends on either qt4
> or gtk version right? Should that be considered?
No, when I check I discover we're both wrong. It isn't an
"alternatives" metapackage; it isn't a "current version" metapackage;
it's a "suite" metapackage: it pulls in lazarus-ide, lazarus-src, and
lazarus-doc - each of which is in turn a metapackage.
But I won't try to produce a third draft immediately!
--
JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package
Reply to: