On Thu, 2016-07-28 at 15:25 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 at 08:33:21 -0400, Marvin Renich wrote: > > Do you mean metapackage or virtual package? Wouldn't a virtual > > package > > be exactly the right thing for this? Then dbus-user-session and > > dbus-x11 would each "Provides: dbus-session" and no additional real > > package is required. Maybe I do not understand what is being > > suggested. > > If we want to avoid mass package changes when the preferred way to > get > a session bus changes, then either it has to be a real package, or we > have to have a real dbus-default-session-bus package instead. > > When there are two or more providers for a virtual package, > dependening > packages need to depend on a real package, with a virtual package as > an alternative. If we just had
It is sufficient to ensure there is only one provider of the "default" package. This is currently done for the default MTA: packages needing a MTA depend on "default-mta | mail-transport-agent". The only provider (in Debian) of default-mta is exim4-daemon-light, so exim4 is selected by default if no other MTA is installed. Ansgar
