On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 09:11:03PM +0200, Bart Schuller wrote: > On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 02:45:04PM +0200, Yann Dirson wrote: > > I suggest that we introduce a new virtual package, named > > xml-fo-formatter, which will be Provides:'d by packages able to make > > sense of it (ie. turn them into printable material), and Suggests:'d > > by xsl processors. > > packages? That would be both of them then (fop and passivetex). > > > I don't think there is currently any means of finding such software in > > the archive, and this does not help to make Debian easy to use to > > process XML documents. > > A virtual package in itself does nothing to enhance visibility. Also, a > virtual package is normally used for packages that provide the same > interface (like /usr/sbin/sendmail).
Not necessarily. See virtual packages www-browser, news-reader, news-transport-system, etc. > Fop and passivetex are radically different As long as they provide the same kind of functionnality, there should be no problem. > (and both still incomplete enough to irritate). That's another story :) > Oh, and it turns out passivetex isn't even packaged yet, and fop is 3 > versions behind. There is already a bugreport on fop, and an ITP on PassiveTeX - I CC the respective persons. > What's wrong with a Suggests: one|theother? You don't want to update every XML->FO package each time a new FO->x processor is added. Think of post-woody release, when packages are backported. That's why virtual packages exist... As well, that would allow to prepare everything, so that no change is required when passivetex comes. -- Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.alcove.com/ Free-Software Engineer Ingénieur Logiciel-Libre Free-Software time manager Responsable du temps Informatique-Libre
