On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 12:02:13PM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote: > On Sun, Jun 02, 2002 at 06:51:42PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote: > > Um, as a potential user (in the my-package-depends-on sense), it would > > be nice if there were a virtual packagename (or something similar) > > that I could depend on. Right now, the x.org version could provide > > that dependency, and later, when/if the XF86 version gets fixed, it > > could also provide the same. > > Sounds reasonable. Branden can decide if he'd prefer to leave the current > xprt to contain the XFree86 binary, or transform it into the virtual > package, and I'll fit in accordingly. Seems to me though that xprint would > be the appropriate name for the virtual package, in which case xprt could > stay as xprt, just changing the Provides: field etc. This approach sounds the best to me. I hate to disrupt the xprt package, even if no one actually uses it. Are you comfortable with calling the X.Org XPRINT server binary "Xprt-Xorg" or something similar? Personally, I think it would be a good idea to rename the server binary entirely to emphasize its rebirth, but that decision is best left to the upstream authors. -- G. Branden Robinson | Suffer before God and ye shall be Debian GNU/Linux | redeemed. God loves us, so He branden@debian.org | makes us suffer Christianity. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Aaron Dunsmore
Attachment:
pgp4xNwIsO7Vx.pgp
Description: PGP signature