Package: debian-policy
>>>>> "jae" == Jürgen A Erhard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>>> "Brian" == Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Brian> (now I wonder when I created rsh-server and ftp-server, why
Brian> I didn't say ftp-client and telnet-server, too - at least
Brian> thats the way I remember it).
jae> I guess you followed the RULE: virtual packages are only
jae> created on "we need it" basis (as outlined in
jae> debian-policy/virtual-package-names-list.text.gz). And
jae> ftp-client/telnet-server weren't needed, so you didn't create
jae> them.
jae> Which is, IMHO, a pretty stupid policy... a feature-based
jae> thing (with compatible interfaces, of course) would be more
jae> logical. Think about what might be needed, not just what
jae> *is* (when I buy a new HD, I don't buy just enough so what I
jae> need now fits, I buy in anticipation of future needs (and
jae> according to what I can afford ;-)
Agreed.
I wish to create the following virtual packages:
telnet-server Any telnet server
ftp-client Any ftp client
rsh-server Any rsh server
The following virtual package should exist (according to the changelog),
but doesn't:
telnet-client Any telnet client
To go along side these already existing virtual packages:
ftp-server Any ftp server
rsh-client Any package that provides an rsh client
Justification:
1. See above text.
2. rsh-server: A number of packages depend on rsh-server, and I think
the version in heimdal-clients is also sufficient. This requires a
virtual package.
3. telnet-server: means each telnet server only needs to conflict with
"telnet-server" and not have to name each individual server.
4. ftp-client: could be useful for packages like dftp which depend on
ftp. This wouldn't include programs like ncftp, which are completely
different, but rather ftp and heimdal-clients (which includes ftp).
--
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
