On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 11:17:57AM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > A virtual package is a means to indicate a package provides a certain > interface, not some functionality.
Some virtual packages (mail-transport-agent, c-compiler, httpd, most of *-server) clearly do have an associated interface. Some (mail-reader, www-browser, audio-mixer) clearly do not. > Functionality is useless if you can't use it in a standard way. If that were true, then nothing would depend on mail-reader or www-browser or audio-mixer. But things do. > If policy is currently unclear on this we should improve the policy > text. It definitely makes sense for each virtual package to specify > the exact interface it represents. For those virtual packages which have an assumed interface (which is probably most of them), I fully agree. Good: Documenting interfaces for virtual packages. Bad: throwing out virtual packages which lack an interface to document. -- Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra- osis is too long [EMAIL PROTECTED] | microscopicsilico- to fit into a single or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | volcaniconi- standalone haiku -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
