On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 01:34:50PM +0300, Reco wrote:
One would think that gnome-www-browser virtual package would fit such
role perfectly. I mean, if GNOME DE has some special requirement for a
browser, and Debian already has such aptly named virtual package -
surely it can be considered as a suitable dependency?
It'd be confusing for people not using GNOME. It's not clear what the
purpose of that name should be, as it's not declared in Policy's list of
virtual package names. Policy states
"Packages MUST NOT use virtual package names (except privately,
amongst a cooperating group of packages) unless they have been
agreed upon and appear in this list."
So it doesn't *need* to be included in the authoritative list¹ so long
as it's only in use amongst a "private, cooperating group of packages".
This is an area of interest for me (virtual package names, what Policy
dictates, how we describe what they mean, semantically; how we do so in
a way such that we can check their usage in the archive mechanically,
etc.) so I might try to pick up my work on improving it post-bullseye.
¹
https://salsa.debian.org/dbnpolicy/policy/-/blob/master/virtual-package-names-list.yaml
--
Please do not CC me for listmail.
👱🏻 Jonathan Dowland
✎ j...@debian.org
🔗 https://jmtd.net
