Nicolas Boulenguez writes: > On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 11:40:10PM +0100, Ludovic Brenta wrote: >> I think >> >> Depends: gnat-x.y | ada-compiler >> >> would be even better. Note that lintian says: "depends on a virtual >> package without listing a real package as an alternative first." >> Alternatives are separated by | in Depends and Build-Depends lines. > > Every gnat-*.* package does provide ada-compiler, so > > "Depends: gnat, gnat-4.6 | ada-compiler" is satisfied with gnat (=4.4) > and gnat-4.4 installed. > > "Depends: gnat | ada-compiler, gnat-4.6" is satisfied with gnat (=4.4) > and gnat-4.6 installed but not used by default. > > If I understand well, we want to avoid both these situations. > > I cannot see why the dependency has to be as strong as "Depends". > Depends:, Recommends: and Suggests: are equally highlighted in the > reverse-dependency search of aptitude, but Depends: may cause > problems.
Hmm, you're right, of course. I see no solution that really satisfies me; I think "Recommends:" and "Suggests:" have the same problem as "Depends:", i.e. they also should contain "gnat-x.y | ada-compiler". However, I just reviewed the authoritative list of virtual packages[1] (which is part of Debian Policy) and to my astonishment found that ada-compiler is not in it. So perhaps the best solution is simply to drop ada-compiler altogether? There are additional reasons for dropping ada-compiler: - other virtual packages correspond to a command available to other packages in /usr/bin, but there is no /usr/bin/ada-compiler - the only Ada compiler in Debian is GNAT; there is no real need for a virtual package provided by several real packages. [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/virtual-package-names-list.txt -- Ludovic Brenta. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
