Bug#682347: mark 'editor' virtual package name as obsolete

[Brendan O'Dea <bod@debian.org>]

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:03:23PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>Would anyone on the Policy list or any of the maintainers bcc'd want to
>make a case for keeping the virtual package "editor"?

No strong objection to removing this virtual package.

>In previous discussions, no one seemed to feel that it was helpful as a
>virtual package.  Virtual packages are only useful for another package to
>depend on (or recommend or suggest), or for someone to manually use as in
>"apt-get install editor", neither of which seem like useful actions here.
>(Or to conflict with, but that's obviously wrong here.)  No packages
>currently declare any type of dependency on editor.

Note that there *are* a handful packages which still depend/recommend/suggest
editor and will need bugs raised along with those for the editors providing
it.

  $ apt-cache showpkg editor
  Package: editor
  Versions:

  Reverse Depends:
    dnsvi,editor
    xpaint,editor
    udo-doc-en,editor
    udo-doc-de,editor
    libproc-invokeeditor-perl,editor
  [...]

--bod