On Nov 20, 2014 3:01 PM, "Jonas Smedegaard" <d...@jones.dk> wrote: > > Quoting Andreas Cadhalpun (2014-11-20 17:09:49) > > On 19.11.2014 13:09, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > >> Possibly we can simplify even further: > >> > >> * Have package libavcodec-extra-NN provide virtual libavcodec-extra > >> (i.e. non-versioned name of itself) > >> * Let GPLv2 packages conflict against libavcodec-extra (i.e. not > >> replace but complement existing suggests/recommends/depends). > >> > >> How does that sound? > > > > This sounds good, except that the virtual package needs another name, > > because libavcodec-extra is actually a real package [1]. > > I don't see a problem in conflicting both with virtual provisions of the > package and the real package - as the latter seems to me to provide > nothing beyond pulling in latest of those same virtual provisions.
I'm pretty sure that this approach makes it impossible to have a versioned dependency on libavcodec-extra. Not sure if there is an actual need for this, though. Reinhard
