On Sun, 20 Dec 2009, David Paleino wrote: > Daniel Burrows wrote: > > > [..] > > I actually would prefer a Meta-Depends sort of solution. The > > "dependencies" we're talking about are really not package dependencies > > in the normal sense at all, and we shouldn't be confusing them with > > normal dependencies. IMO, that basic conflation, while a convenient > > and expedient hack when it was introduced years ago, is the cause of > > our troubles. > > Well, we (me and Luca Bruno (not kaeso, the other one)) decided not to use > Meta-Depends because that would've broken meta-packages installed with > $non_compliant_tool .
That's why you can use "Breaks: $non_compliant_tool" on new generation meta-packages. I also agree that the meaning of "Depends" shouldn't change at all with the introduction of this feature. We had this discussion recently on a dpkg bug report. http://bugs.debian.org/548661 Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
