Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > what about creating empty packages only to satisfy dependancies and > > be able to install loosy related set of packages. Metapackage > > seems to be the right name for such creature ;)
> People already thought of that :) it was discussed on -gtk-gnome list, > and I think someone is just about ready to do it. Yes. I'm about to upload (in a few days) the metapkg-sgml package. I suggest we all follow naming conventions, i.e., 'metapkg-*', so that it's easy to pick these babies out. I also suggest the use of equivs... it seems just the ticket. I've still got to dig into equivs more deeply, specifically, to see how it interacts with my CVS-based workflow. [Brandon, this doesn't necessarily apply to you, since your metapackage is a backwards-compatability metapkg.] -- .....Adam Di [EMAIL PROTECTED]<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>