Package: debian-policy
[ Note: I think this bug should be fixed before Bug #34428 ].
The bug:
=======
The /usr/doc/debian-policy/virtual-package-names-list.text.gz file says:
awk Anything providing suitable /usr/bin/{awk,nawk}
So: Is "nawk" an approved virtual package name or not? It appears in the
right-hand side but not in the left-hand side!
IMHO, it should read either this:
1)
awk Anything providing suitable /usr/bin/awk
or this:
2)
awk Anything providing suitable /usr/bin/awk
nawk Anything providing suitable /usr/bin/nawk
Some facts about this bug:
=========================
We have three Debian awk packages, and none of them is an "old awk":
mawk
gawk
original-awk
My proposal to fix the bug:
==========================
Technically speaking, I don't think we need a "nawk" virtual package.
IMHO, the old awk / new awk dichotomy is a leftover of the past.
If we assume Debian is "standarized enough" so that, for example,
/usr/bin/perl is always "perl version 5", and the log directory is always
/var/log, we could do the same with awk and require that every package
providing /usr/bin/awk should always be a "new awk".
So, to simplify things, I propose that we modify the policy so that only
`awk' is listed as a virtual package, i.e. proposal "1)" above.
[ This way, bug #34428 would be just a bug in autoconf for not using "awk"
instead of "nawk"; not a bug in four packages: autoconf, mawk, gawk and
original-awk for not having autoconf a Depends: nawk and not having mawk,
gawk and original-awk a Provides: nawk ].
I'm now looking for seconds for this proposal.
[ BTW: How long the discussion period be? Two weeks? ].
Thanks.
--
"1a9f57a328b8d247cb6d880301b0a7cb" (a truly random sig)
