On 2012-08-16 01:22, Stuart Prescott wrote: > Package: lintian > Version: 2.5.10.1 > Severity: normal > > Hi! >
Hi, > [...] > > The usage of "virtual package" in this way is quite at odds with the normal > usage of "virtual package" in Debian -- a usage which is guided by Policy > ยง3.6 and is in the output of our package management tools like apt. Virtual > packages don't exist -- so an empty package cannot be a virtual package. I tend to agree here and I have just committed a patch to remove the suggestion to use "virtual package". > Moreover, there is an authoritative list of virtual packages -- maintainers > don't just add the words "virtual package" to package descriptions. > FTR, we have virtual packages not listed in that "authoritative list". The policy allows them (in some cases like "private collaboration betweem packages" or something like that). > I'd like to see "virtual" removed from @METAPKG_REGEX and the tag > description. I wondered if a separate tag be added that flags packages that > use "virtual package" in their descriptions, but there are only 16 packages in > sid that currently do that, and only grass, korundum, mediatomb, mrpt-libs, > roxterm, wine, wine-unstable would not be false-positives. > > cheers > Stuart > I have not updated the regex yet (so "virtual package" is still accepted), but as mentioned the description has been changed. So that's only half of what you asked (and accordingly, I am not tagging this bug pending). I feel it is a bit overkill to add a tag for a mere 16 packages (especially if there will be false-positives in those). Perhaps I can convince you to file bugs against them for Jessie? ~Niels -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
