Martin-Éric Racine wrote: > However, there is not > way to declare that a package will depend on both good and ugly, > instead of just bad.
Do you mean something like "good (>= x.y) | bad (<< x.y), ugly (>= x.y) | bad (<< x.y)" That way your package will depend on both good and ugly >= some_version, or bad << some version, so you always get the codec you want. I agree this way isn't ideal for maintainers though. Perhaps good/bad/ugly could provide a virtual package named like the codec, but that might be overkilling.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
