Bug#958988: key packages script does not take account of virtual packages.

[Andreas Beckmann <anbe@debian.org>]

On 27/04/2020 19.55, peter green wrote:
> 1. What should the policy be on handling virtual packages? it seems to
> me that virtual packages with only a single provider should be treated
> much the same as real packages but what about those with multiple
> providers? ignore them? pick one according to priority and popcon?
> include them all? (it seems like the latter could lead to unnessacery
> growth of the key packages list).

You should not need to worry about multiple providers, as such virtual
packages should not occur as the default alternative. (And if they show
up, e.g. because the default alternative does not exist/is not
installable, file a bug.)

Policy 7.5:

[...]
    To specify which of a set of real packages should be the default to
    satisfy a particular dependency on a virtual package, list the real
    package as an alternative before the virtual one.
[...]

E.g. Depends: default-mta | mail-transport-agent


Andreas

PS: There are currently 14 providers of mail-transport-agent in sid ;-)