On May 25, Craig Sanders wrote > > On Sun, 25 May 1997, Christian Schwarz wrote: > > > I fully agree to what Manoj said. Since the dotfile generator will > > probably get widely used by other packages we should put this package on > > our list of "public virtual packages". > > > > Since I maintain this list, I suggest the following addition to section > > "Miscellaneous": > > > > dotfile-module Anything that provides a module for the dotfile > > generator > > > > Does someone have objections? > > No objections, just a query: > > what will this actually achieve? > Will dselect automatically select new packages providing dotfile-module > when they appear? > > As far as I know, it won't - at least not if dotfile only Suggests > dotfile-module.....and even if it does do it for Recommends, the > behaviour of Recommends is obnoxious enough that it should NOT be used > in this situation.
Whether it depends, recommends or suggests dotfile-module, dselect would still be satisfied when just one module is selected, so when new modules appear they won't be selected automatically. This is much easier to do than make a depends line look like this: Depends: dotfile-bash | dotfile-fvwm2 | dotfile-tcsh etc. I think dotfile should depend on dotfile-module, since it's practically useless without it. I could be convinced to only recommend it, but as Craig pointed out, dselect does not treat Recommends any differently than it does Depends. > > the individual dotfile-modules should Depend upon dotfile right. >but except > for the initial install of dotfile, i can't see much benefit at all in > having dotfile Suggest dotfile-module. See above. -- Proudly running Debian Linux! Linux vs. Windows is a no-Win situation.... Igor Grobman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
