[email protected] wrote: > On 2/2/2011 2:16 AM, Tapio Rantala wrote: >> Hi >> >> I saw this from rpmlint: >> "W: meego-filelist-empty packages without any files are not allowed >> in MeeGo" >> >> So, how about meta packages that only exist to provide a name to >> require? Are those banned from meego? Should meta packages include >> copyright/license file to make them fit? > > in the rpm world we normally don't do meta packages at all
to amplify, unlike in the dpkg world, a package can "provide" multiple names, and they can be "abstract", it's not the "package can only provide one name, and it's the name of the package" rule dpkg uses. the other kind of meta-package, an empty package that depends on a bunch of other stuff so you can install a complete subsystem, is often handled as well/better by using package groups. _______________________________________________ MeeGo-packaging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-packaging
