On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 08:20:23PM +0100, Arno Töll wrote: > On 06.01.2012 19:09, Thomas Goirand wrote: > > I don't think this would be an issue for anyone, and I wouldn't see any > > argument against it (I'm sure someone in this list will though... :) ). > > Your thoughts?
> The overall benefit over our virtual package system, possibly in > addition to equivs seems flexible enough. Why do we tailor incomplete > special case solutions instead of recommending equivs more popularly? > I say incomplete, because similar use cases exist for different package > groups - e.g. think of mail servers and database servers. Do we really > want dummy packages for each group of alternatives? > On the other hand, we have a perfect solution which apparently only > needs some more propaganda if even developer don't know it. > That said, you're a developer. If you want to maintain such a dummy > package, you could consider uploading it despite of all critics and hope > ftpmaster will accept it. I hope ftpmasters would reject such a package with prejudice. The solution for a dependency that you're not happy with is not to break it in the archive with dummy packages. It would be very wrong to bypass the dependency system in the archive on account of the filesystem cross-mount tricks described here. Using equivs locally is the *right* solution for such cases. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
