On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 05:12:13PM -0500, David Steele wrote: > On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 4:42 PM Bill Allombert <ballo...@debian.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 01:34:44PM -0500, David Steele wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 1:15 PM Bill Allombert <ballo...@debian.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Do you envision to have packages depending on todo and then use the > > > > todo binary ? > > > > > > > > > > No. This is a means to allow topydo and todotxt-cli to use "todo" without > > > crowding devtodo. I believe this meets the definition of a virtual > > package > > > in the Policy. > > > > I am not use I understand. Do you plan for /usr/bin/todo to be managed by > > update-alternatives ? That would require all alternatives to share a common > > interface. > > > > The guidance in the Policy is that alternatives "offer more-or-less the same > functionality". I believe this standard is met.
Are people using /usr/bin/todo in script or Makefile ? Are they likely to still work with the alternatives ? Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here.
