On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 12:17:41AM +0000, Justin B Rye wrote: > [email protected] wrote: > >> + <para> > >> + The package descriptions for transitional dummy packages usually > >> indicate their > >> + purpose. However, they are not uniform; in particular, some > >> <quote>dummy</quote> > >> + packages are designed to be kept installed (e.g. to express a > >> dependency on > >> + the current latest version of some program). You might also find > >> + <command>deborphan</command> with the > >> <literal>--guess-<replaceable>*</replaceable></literal> options > >> (e.g. > >> - <literal>--guess-dummy</literal>) useful to detect them in your > >> system. Note > >> - that some dummy packages are not intended to be removed after an > >> upgrade but > >> - are, instead, used to keep track of the current available version > >> of a program > >> - over time. > >> + <literal>--guess-dummy</literal>) useful to detect transitional > >> dummy packages > >> + on your system. > >> </para> > >> </section> > >> > > > > I agree with everything you've said about this text but as regards > > the patch I think some mention of tracking packages should be kept. > > Something like: > > > > One class of dummy package that are not intended to be removed > > are <quote>tracking</quote> packages, which are used to keep > > track of the current available version of a program over time. > > A common case is <literal>linux-image-</literal>-&architecture;. > > The idea was that the earlier bit about "a dependency on the current > latest version of some program" was talking about "tracking packages", > and it seemed to make more sense to mention them in the part before > the deborphan recipe. >
Ah, with you now. sorry for the noise. > Unlike Ben I rather like the idea of distinguishing version-tracking > dependency metapackages from full-suite dependency metapackages, but > we don't want to go into it in depth here. The objective is just to > tell readers enough to let them ignore both kinds while searching for > transitional dummy packages. > > I was deliberately not using linux-image-* as an example on the > grounds that it doesn't claim to be a "dummy package". In fact most > of the confusing cases seem to be "full-suite" metapackages. > > So another option would be: > > The package descriptions for transitional dummy packages usually > indicate their > purpose. However, they are not uniform; in particular, some > <quote>dummy</quote> > packages are designed to be kept installed, in order to pull in a full > software > suite, or track the current latest version of some program. You might > also find > <command>deborphan</command> with the > <literal>--guess-<replaceable>*</replaceable></literal> options (e.g. > <literal>--guess-dummy</literal>) useful to detect transitional dummy > packages > on your system. > Works for me. Vince
