"Brian C. White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I propose to add the following virtual packages:
> > >
> > > - gnu-make useful for packages like kernel-package and my new
> > > compress-package (not yet released) that *need* a GNU make
> > > to be used.
> >
> > Do we have (or expect to have) more than one package that provides "make"?
> > Otherwise, I don't see the use.
>
> Actually, changing the name of the make package to "gnumake" might not
> be too bad of an idea. There are several versions of make around. While
> I see little reason for other versions of make, Debian has several
> instances of redundant packages. I mean, why bother with any other
> editors when "emacs" is available? <runs away laughing before he gets
> lynched>
>
> You could make a case for virtual package "make", instead.
I like this idea. It seems to me that having GNU Make's package name being
"gmake", and having it provide "make" (with pmake doing the same), is the
better way to do it. Manoj, as GNU Make maintainer, do you have anything to
say on the issue?
Warwick
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warwick Harvey email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Department of Computer Science phone: +61-3-9287-9171
University of Melbourne fax: +61-3-9348-1184
Parkville, Victoria, AUSTRALIA 3052 web: http://www.cs.mu.OZ.AU/~warwick
