Hi Reinhard, Quoting Reinhard Tartler (2014-11-20 21:45:56) > On Nov 20, 2014 3:01 PM, "Jonas Smedegaard" <[1]dr@jones.dk> wrote: >> Quoting Andreas Cadhalpun (2014-11-20 17:09:49) >>> On 19.11.2014 13:09, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >>>> Possibly we can simplify even further: >>>> >>>> * Have package libavcodec-extra-NN provide virtual >>>> libavcodec-extra (i.e. non-versioned name of itself) >>>> * Let GPLv2 packages conflict against libavcodec-extra (i.e. not >>>> replace but complement existing suggests/recommends/depends). >>>> >>>> How does that sound? >>> >>> This sounds good, except that the virtual package needs another >>> name, because libavcodec-extra is actually a real package [1]. >> >> I don't see a problem in conflicting both with virtual provisions of >> the package and the real package - as the latter seems to me to >> provide nothing beyond pulling in latest of those same virtual >> provisions. > > I'm pretty sure that this approach makes it impossible to have a > versioned dependency on libavcodec-extra. Not sure if there is an > actual need for this, though. Now you get me curious: How would providing a virtual package make it any more difficult to depend versioned on a package? Is it more difficult to depend versioned on e.g. apache2, which provides httpd and httpd-cgi? Perhaps you mean difficulty of declaring versioned conflict or breakage, but I believe that should be against the real package - the ability to conflict/break *any* libavcodec-extra-* through their common virtual package is just a convenience that shouldn't get in the way of mre finegrained relationships, I believe. What am I missing? - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature