Re: [epg@progeny.com: Bug#154142: dhcp-client conflicts]
Whoops, I intended that last reply to go to the list. Just shows that
you should check your headers even when you're writing a quick
note. :)
On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 01:59:19PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Chris Waters wrote:
> > Yes, and those virtual packages with no associated interface tend to
> > be less useful. I completely agree. I still think it's a bit much to
> > throw them out, just because they're not _as_ useful as the rest of
> > the virtual packages.
> I never said we should thrown them out..
Not directly, no, but you said that "A virtual package is a means to
indicate a package provides a certain interface, not some
functionality. Functionality is useless if you can't use it in a
standard way." If the merely-functional virtual packages were
actually useless (which is essentially what you said), then I think we
would be justified in throwing them out. But I don't think they are,
so I don't think we are.
--
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: