On 09/11/2018 00.59, Reco wrote:
On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 03:53:54PM +0000, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 10:53:01AM +0900, John Crawley wrote:
www-browser and x-www-browser being different things, this would be a bug in
the LXDE metapackage?
It is indeed, yes,* but what's the fix: what should the metapackage
actually depend upon, given x-www-browser virtual package does not exist
yet?
* or arguably whichever concrete lxde package actually contains the
shortcut definition
lxde-core depends on www-browser already (Suggests, actually, but that's
irrelevant). So it might as well depend on this to-be-done
x-www-browser.
Can a package depend on a non-existant virtual package?
Is x-www-browser due to be added to the official Debian virtual package
list?
(
https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/virtual-package-names-list.txt
Items in that list which are also Debian alternatives should be marked
with a * but some have been missed. )
At the moment www-browser is a virtual package, but not a registered
Debian alternative, while x-www-browser is an alternative but not a VP. :|
I suppose a workaround for the LXDE package would be to depend
on/recommend/suggest any of a list of usable X browsers, like:
Suggests: firefox | firefox-esr | chromium ...
The choice of safe possibilities for that list might be quite limited.
BTW if a package ships a .desktop file evoking x-www-browser, is it not
obliged to Depend on (rather than Recommend/Suggest) a package which
provides that alternative? Or would a TryExec field in the .desktop file
be enough to cover it?
--
John
