On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 11:46:51PM +0100, Luca Bigliardi wrote: > On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 10:48 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > The best I could do would be to version it 1:1.7+1.8.1.14-3. Do you > > think it's any better ? > > Maybe it's not so appropriate but... what about virtual packages? > > Like "Provides: js-1.7" for spidermonkey-bin and > "Provides: libjs-1.7" for libmozjs..
Virtual packages are not for that purpose. Quoting Debian Policy: Sometimes, there are several packages which offer more-or-less the same functionality. In this case, it's useful to define a virtual package whose name describes that common functionality. We don't have several packages offering the same functionality, here, merely, you'd just like a version number. Also, FWIW: They should not use virtual package names (...) unless they have been agreed upon and appear in the list of virtual package names. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
