Re: virtual package versions?

[Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com>]

Hi,

	Umm, I have misgivings about packages providing multiple
 (virtual) versions. A real package can only provide one version,
 virtual packages should not have more priviledges.

	Also, I would like to consider separating the name spaces of
 the virtual and concrete packages, as far as possible; very rarely
 can a package emulate another to justify it ``providing'' the other
 real package. In these cases, both packages should provide a new
 "virtual" package, and dependents depend on the virtual package.  

	Allowing all names to be potentially virtual is something we
 shall regret, I fear. 

	Also, we should not dilute the semantics of the conflict just
 for virtual packages -- I think that is playing with system
 stability, in the long run.

	I am for versioned virtual packages, but only if the strict
 versioning semantics that apply to normal packages also apply to
 them, anything else may impact apt.

	manoj
-- 
 The history of liberty is the history of resistance ... [it is a]
 history of the limitation of governmental power.  -- Woodrow Wilson
Manoj Srivastava  <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org