Re: cleaning up our task packages
On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Britton wrote:
>
> > Currently we've only had two real excuses for using empty packages:
> > for handling splits, and for tasks. It seems a little like people want a
> > third sort, just as a collection of related packages that you generally
> > want to install at once. This might be just an artifact of "recommends"
> > not doing anything anymore, or it might be a real valid use.
>
> That is the big concern I have with the quick invention of a hierarchical
> task system or the like is that it seems like it would likely end up
> redundant with what we already have.
Getting a little bit off task-packages topic, but on the topic of 'empty'
packages: Could I make a package that: pre-depends on other packages (gcc
and binutils-multiarch); includes its entire functionality through
debconf; and is 'empty' in that it does not include any files except
under /usr/share/doc/<package>?
Personally, I think it would be an amazing misuse of debconf, but would
there be any actual policy problems with it? I'm afraid I don't yet grok
policy well enough to tell for myself.
Reply to: