On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:03:23PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>Would anyone on the Policy list or any of the maintainers bcc'd want to
>make a case for keeping the virtual package "editor"?
No strong objection to removing this virtual package.
>In previous discussions, no one seemed to feel that it was helpful as a
>virtual package. Virtual packages are only useful for another package to
>depend on (or recommend or suggest), or for someone to manually use as in
>"apt-get install editor", neither of which seem like useful actions here.
>(Or to conflict with, but that's obviously wrong here.) No packages
>currently declare any type of dependency on editor.
Note that there *are* a handful packages which still depend/recommend/suggest
editor and will need bugs raised along with those for the editors providing
it.
$ apt-cache showpkg editor
Package: editor
Versions:
Reverse Depends:
dnsvi,editor
xpaint,editor
udo-doc-en,editor
udo-doc-de,editor
libproc-invokeeditor-perl,editor
[...]
--bod
