Re: No x-www-browser virtual package
Stéphane Aulery <email@example.com> writes:
> update-alternatives offers the choice: gnome-www-browser, www-browser
> and x-www-browser but there is no virtual package x-www-browser.
I don't think those are virtual packages, are they? They're alternatives.
Oh, hm, maybe they're both.
> This is problematic for packages that want to offer the choice of a
> browser console only, because the www-browser virtual package points to
> all browsers.
It looks like we have nothing in Policy that describes how these virtual
packages and alternatives are supposed to be used, unless I'm missing
Ideally, you should be able to just use sensible-browser. It tries to
figure out what to do dynamically at runtime based on whether X is
available (and whether various DEs are available). But this runs into the
same problem, since its non-DISPLAY fallback (if BROWSER isn't set) is to
> How to solve this problem? Simply by asking managers of packages of
> graphical browsers to point to the correct virtual package
> Is this appropriate?
All this stuff badly needs to be documented in Policy, and then we can
point maintainers at that.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>