Ian Jackson wrote:
> The Wanderer writes ("Re: Possible MBF: Packages depending on iceweasel but
> not firefox/firefox-esr"):
> > Now, one thing which seems like it _could_ fix this without requiring a
> > MBF would be for firefox and firefox-esr to acquire 'Provides:
> > iceweasel'. That seems like a misuse of the system to me, however, and a
> > suboptimal solution at best.
>
> I don't understand what is wrong with this approach. It seems
> perfectly sensible to me.
Leaving aside any other reasons: many packages have a versioned
dependency on iceweasel, and we don't have versioned provides.
(Though *if* apt, dpkg, and all associated tools have the behavior of
satisfying a versioned dependency on a virtual package if the providing
package has the right version, that would potentially work since
iceweasel and firefox/firefox-esr share the right versioning scheme.)
- Josh Triplett
