Scott Ritchie <[email protected]> wrote: >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
Don't we already have Section: metapackages. Between that and oldlibs, why do we need more? Also, for actual metapackages, I'm pretty sure displaying the depends instead is not what we'd want. Scott K -- ubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
