control: tag -1 + moreinfo Hello David,
On Fri 04 Dec 2020 at 12:15PM -05, David Steele wrote: > I'd like to propose adding the virtual packages "todo" and "todo.txt" to > the authoritative list of virtual package names. I'm submitting this per > Policy section 3.6 and the preamble to the [authoritative list]. > > [Todo.txt] describes an ecosystem of task management tools that revolve > around a standard for a freeform-text tasking file. > > The reference cli has been packaged for some time, as "todotxt-cli". It > provides the executable "todo-txt". > > An alternative cli provider, "topydo", has been recently added, adding > an executable by the same name. > > I propose uniting this packages using the name "todo" - the common name > for the utility. Since not all todo list packages that may want to share > that name conform to the todo.txt standards, I also propose "todo.txt", > a strict subset of "todo", for packages which conform. Putting aside the use of the alternatives system, why is a virtual package wanted? When would it be useful to be able to declare a dependency and have it satisfied by one of these implementations? So far this does not seem anything like, e.g., wanting to declare a dependency on having the ability to programmatically send e-mail. -- Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
