On 2/15/13 11:49 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
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.
What about actual oldlibs? It seems like it might be reasonable to show
those in software center but not show dummy packages, so using oldlibs
to imply dummy would result in a mistake.
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[email protected]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
