Bug#685029: lintian: empty-binary-package misuses "virtual package"
On 2012-08-16 01:22, Stuart Prescott wrote:
> Package: lintian
> Version: 2.5.10.1
> Severity: normal
>
> Hi!
>
Hi,
> [...]
>
> The usage of "virtual package" in this way is quite at odds with the normal
> usage of "virtual package" in Debian -- a usage which is guided by Policy
> §3.6 and is in the output of our package management tools like apt. Virtual
> packages don't exist -- so an empty package cannot be a virtual package.
I tend to agree here and I have just committed a patch to remove the
suggestion to use "virtual package".
> Moreover, there is an authoritative list of virtual packages -- maintainers
> don't just add the words "virtual package" to package descriptions.
>
FTR, we have virtual packages not listed in that "authoritative list".
The policy allows them (in some cases like "private collaboration
betweem packages" or something like that).
> I'd like to see "virtual" removed from @METAPKG_REGEX and the tag
> description. I wondered if a separate tag be added that flags packages that
> use "virtual package" in their descriptions, but there are only 16 packages in
> sid that currently do that, and only grass, korundum, mediatomb, mrpt-libs,
> roxterm, wine, wine-unstable would not be false-positives.
>
> cheers
> Stuart
>
I have not updated the regex yet (so "virtual package" is still
accepted), but as mentioned the description has been changed. So that's
only half of what you asked (and accordingly, I am not tagging this bug
pending).
I feel it is a bit overkill to add a tag for a mere 16 packages
(especially if there will be false-positives in those). Perhaps I can
convince you to file bugs against them for Jessie?
~Niels
Reply to: