> >> If, e.g, my package can take advantage of Netscape, then it should > >> be the responsibility of my package, not Netscape, to mention that > >> fact. Otherwise, Netscape (in particular) may need to have hundreds > >> of packages listed under "Enhances". Not to mention that fact that it > >> may require new uploads of Netscape simply to add or remove packages > >> from Netscape's "Enhances" field. That's simply not a good or sensible > >> design. It may be ok for gimp-nonfree or tetex-nonfree, where the > >> "Enhances" is for one-and-only-one package, but it doesn't work for > >> the great majority of cases.
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Raul> That's solvable: create a virtual package which has a free instance > Raul> (such as Mozilla) which provides the interface you're taking advantage > of. On Tue, Nov 30, 1999 at 01:21:22PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > This is an additional hack to cover the hack that people are > proposing. Enhances is a legitimate dependency, as is suggests, but > niether are really what is reqwuired to hide non-free from people who > do not want to see it. Actually, this particular case has nothing to do with Enhances. Re-read the above text. It looks to me as if you're saying it's right to say suggest netscape and not suggest a virtual package which both mozilla and netscape provide. And we still don't have a good example case where "free package suggests non-free package" is better than "non-free package enhances free package" -- Raul
