Bug#257726: debian-policy: Please remove virtual package cron-daemon
On 05-Jul-04, 16:11 (CDT), Chris Waters <xtifr@debian.org> wrote:
>
> And existing international standards that define exactly what a cron
> daemon is and how it works aren't a good enough answer to that
> question because of what, again?
Because what that standard specifies is actually useless *for Debian
packages*, which is the sole use of virtual packages.
Or am I wrong, and it does specify
/etc/cron.{d,daily,weekly,monthly}? Nope, looking at
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xcu/crontab.html, I see
nothing useful. It doesn't even require the '-u' option, so the only
thing a package can do is overwrite root's crontab.
> I'm not saying there aren't issues we should address. I'm just
> saying, why don't we try to move forward instead of throwing up our
> hands at the first suggestion that there might possibly be a problem
> someday in the future, if everybody in the project suddenly becomes
> incredibly stupid. It's an honest question.
There's a problem *now*: "Depends: cron-daemon" means nothing.
We already have a huge list of useless virtual packages, created for
no apparent reason and with no defined purpose. Extending it is not a
useful goal in and of itself.
Consider virtual package 'c-compiler'. At least that does have a
generally accepted interface. But what's the point? Why should a package
depend on it? Before you answer, go take a look at reverse-depends
for 'c-compiler', and try to come up with a reasonable, consistent
explanation.
For extra points, please explain 'c-compiler-m68hc11'. (Yes, I know what
an M68HC11 is; that not what I mean.)
Virtual packages were invented to solve a specific problem:
multiple packages that provide a defined interface that can be used
interchangeably by other packages. They are NOT a classification device,
nor should they be created willy-nilly by random package maintainers[1].
Steve
[1] Excluding 'private' virtual packages, i.e. those that are used by
related packages to facilitate upgrades, package renames, etc.
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net
Reply to: