> Why tightening up rules? Policy =C2=A73.6 does not pretend packages > to meet= any specs nor comply with common interfaces, it just says > "Sometimes there are severa= l packages which offer more-or-less the > same functionality. In this case, it'= s useful to define a virtual > package whose name describes that common functionality."
Like all of our policy wording this should be read and interpreted with full understanding of what's goign on. > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Ian Jackson > <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: > > Do users specifically find LV2 plugin packages by name and install > > them ? How does it help the user to have an arbitrary "lv2-host" > > installed too ? > > Actually I receive lots of mails from users asking me questions like > "How c= ould I find an exhaustive list of LV2 toys currently > provided by Debian?", "Does= the X sequencer support LV2 > plugins?". So, I think we'd do a good service to ou= r users by > grouping audio hosts and plugins by features they do provide. [1] Isn't this something which would better be dealt with by debtags ? The purpose of virtual packages is dependency resolution, not user package search. For a virtual package to be useful, it must be sensible (useful to the user) for a depending package, when installed (either because of another dependency, or because a user found the package some other way), to pull in _any one_ of the providers of virtual package. So I'm afraid I still don't understand how this virtual package would help improve the dependency resolution. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20652.60711.467257.543...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
