This follows up a debian-bugs posting with the Subject "Re: Bug#1712: Tex has no version number texbin does"
Erick Branderhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > It might be usefull to let the provides packages have the same version > number as the providing package, or if a specific version number is > given in the provides line providing that version number. Virtual packages were originally proposed, as I recall, to provide a means for alternative packages which conflict with one another but seek to provide the same facility to declare that they each provide that facility so that other packages could declare dependency on the facility rather than on the packages. An example might be the conflicting smail and sendmail packages, either of which would provide an MTA needed by other packages (e.g., pine). Eric's suggestion wouldn't add any value to this use of virtual packages, but wouldn't seem to do any harm either. A quick browse through my /var/lib/dpkg/Status file turned up the following: Package: xlib Provides: xR6shlib, xlibraries Package: dvipsk Provides: dvips Package: texbin Provides: tex Package: libc Provides: libc.so.4 Package: latex Provides: latex Package: ltxtool Provides: ltxtool Package: kpathsea Provides: kpathsea Package: info Provides: info-browser Package: mfbin Provides: metafont In practice, virtual packages seem to be actually being used to provide one or more aliases for one single installing package providing a facility which is not also provided by a conflicting package. Eric's suggestion would seem to be useful in this use of virtual packages.