Re: Virtual packages (was Re: Bug#64006:)
cwitty@newtonlabs.com (Carl R. Witty) writes:
> Chris Waters <xtifr@dsp.net> writes:
> > Julian Gilbey <J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk> writes:
> > > But a package which Recommends: www-browser needs no standard
> > > interface whatsoever, for example.
> > I believe they all fit this template:
> > command-line: <package-specific-program-name> <url>
> Is there a way to run "w3" (the Emacs Lisp web browser) from the
> command line? I don't know if there is; if there isn't, I don't think
> that should prevent emacs20 from "Provide"ing www-browser.
Ok, that seems reasonable. But my point is that we should document
*whatever* it is that we expect from packages that provide a virtual
package. That way, if I have a program that expects to be able to
lauch an URL from the command line (like, e.g. xchat), I can know
whether or not the virtual package is going to fit my needs.
If what you say is true, then a dependency on www-browser is not
adequate for xchat. And it would be nice to know for sure, one way or
the other.
My original statement: "we should document the APIs provided by
virtual packages."
My modified statement in light of all the feedback I've gotten: "we
should document whatever common interface (including none) that our
virtual packages provide."
My underlying point remains the same, though.
cheers
--
Chris Waters xtifr@dsp.net | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or xtifr@debian.org | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.
Reply to: