On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 02:20:46PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >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. Section: metapackages has a very specific meaning wrt the package manager (/etc/apt/apt.conf.d/01autoremove): any package in this section has its *dependencies* marked as manually installed, such that they're never accidentally autoremoved. Care should be taken not to overload this section with metapackages that we don't want to have the same semantics. I do think the existing oldlibs section already covers the 'dummy' case, at least. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [email protected] [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- ubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
