[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: No x-www-browser virtual package

Hello Russ,

Le mardi 18 novembre 2014 à 06:59:02, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> Stéphane Aulery <saulery@free.fr> 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.

These are alternatives, but there are corresponding virtual packets.

> > 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
> something.

I did not read it. I noticed for example that alot package w3m
recommended links or links2 but forgetting elinks, etc. I guess there
must be the same problem for alternatives.

> 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
> use www-browser.

I did not ask me the question of what happens when X falls. I did not
know where to raise the issue to reach the right people.

> > How to solve this problem? Simply by asking managers of packages of
> > graphical browsers to point to the correct virtual package
> > (x-www-browser)?
> > Is this appropriate?
> All this stuff badly needs to be documented in Policy, and then we can
> point maintainers at that.

I am not able to provide the answer, but I can help with my small means.


Stéphane Aulery

Reply to: