On 2/15/13 2:52 AM, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:35:41PM -0800, Scott Ritchie wrote:
We have (and will continue to have) many transitional dummy packages
with no content. I see two main advantages to flagging them:
Were you proposing something like the below? Otherwise the name might
want to include transitional, as there are meta packages which are the
right thing to use and not going away:
XB-Meta-Package: transitional
-apw
Yes, I had thought that we might also want to mark metapackages that
aren't transitional as well, perhaps to prefer showing them in Software
Center. Whether we use the tag "transitional" or "dummy" doesn't really
matter.
So it could be like:
"dummy" -- no files, can be safely removed, don't display in most
tools, remove at release upgrade time, should be in oldlibs section
"meta" -- no files, but depends on one or more other packages,
possibly prefer showing in software center to the depended packages
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[email protected]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
