[originally to debtags-devel, reposted to CCs] >> Enrico Zini wrote:
Thanks for this, Enrico! >> * Dummy packages It may be too late to standardise on "transitional packages", but I've always thought that was more self-explanatory. >> * Metapackages Adeodato Simó wrote: > Would it be unreasonable to ask that metapackages have to be _empty_, > i.e., that all their functionality it's in their control file? Compare gcc, which works similarly to pull in a gcc-*. I recently found that I had only gcc-* installed on a machine, not gcc itself, with the result that a user's compiles failed - the /usr/bin/gcc symlink is in gcc! But gcc doesn't claim to be a "metapackage"; it's a "dependency package". That's hardly self-explanatory, but I agree that it's a distinction worth making. Indeed, if dummy transitional packages were all called transitional packages, we'd be able to distinguish between "dummy" metapackages and ones that contain files... -- JBR Ankh kak! (Ancient Egyptian blessing) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
