Re: [epg@progeny.com: Bug#154142: dhcp-client conflicts]
On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 11:17:57AM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> A virtual package is a means to indicate a package provides a certain
> interface, not some functionality.
Some virtual packages (mail-transport-agent, c-compiler, httpd, most
of *-server) clearly do have an associated interface. Some
(mail-reader, www-browser, audio-mixer) clearly do not.
> Functionality is useless if you can't use it in a standard way.
If that were true, then nothing would depend on mail-reader or
www-browser or audio-mixer. But things do.
> If policy is currently unclear on this we should improve the policy
> text. It definitely makes sense for each virtual package to specify
> the exact interface it represents.
For those virtual packages which have an assumed interface (which is
probably most of them), I fully agree.
Good: Documenting interfaces for virtual packages.
Bad: throwing out virtual packages which lack an interface to document.
--
Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra- osis is too long
xtifr@debian.org | microscopicsilico- to fit into a single
or xtifr@speakeasy.net | volcaniconi- standalone haiku
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: