On Wed, 2009-03-04, 063, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: > * green <[email protected]> [2009-02-27 18:09:06 CET]: > > Please provide the 'irc' virtual package like other IRC clients (xchat, > > scrollz). Thanks! > > Like mentioned in my former reply I don't see any need for that - and > the other IRC clients shouldn't neither. There is no common interface. > Historically there was an irc alternative handling in the packages which > got removed a long time ago because of a missing common interface > between the clients - and the Provides should have got removed back > then, too. > > If you disagree wildly feel free to reopen the bugreport but pretty > please do so with a reason and an answer to the question of what good it > would be for. There isn't a single package in the pool that has either a > Depends or Recommends or Suggests on irc.
The bug report was prompted like this: when I was trying out different irc clients I wanted to see a list of them together. The first thing that came to mind was checking for an irc virtual package. There was one and I tried all of the text-mode clients there. I wasn't really satisfied with any of them and noticed irssi somewhere so I searched for it. Obviously if it had been in the irc virtual package, then I would have found it more quickly. The policy does say "All packages should use virtual package names where appropriate, and arrange to create new ones if necessary." but 'irc' is not in the "authoritative list" and 'irc' has no rdepends, so if you choose to leave irssi 'provides' as it is, I will accept that.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
