RE: Build-Depends question re: yacc, ctags, etc.
If you know, or suspect, that some might not do then make
that knowledge explicit (at least by not listing all similar
packages). All the packages providing *tags are probably
pretty equivalent, but yacc, byacc, bison etc. have differences
that mean that some grammars are not acceptable to all of those.
Should we require in policy that sources have a text file
explaining the dependencies. This would be a natural place
for telling whether all of the 'equivalent' packages do or
not.
t.aa
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <gaia@iki.fi> Fri Nov 12, 1999 11:25 PM
>
> On Fri, Nov 12, 1999 at 08:13:54PM +0000, David Coe wrote:
> > Yacc and ctags are provided by many different packages, and managed
> > by update-alternatives, but there is no virtual package
> corresponding
> > to either of them.
> ...
> > What should I do? Thanks.
>
> Contact the maintainers of such packages and propose a new virtual
> package, then kick that to the policy group.
>
> In the meantime, either choose one or two randomly or list them all
> yourself.
Reply to: