On Tue, 13 Jan 1998, Christian Schwarz wrote: > > [This mail is part of Debian Policy Weekly issue #5] > > Topic 13: New virtual packages > > STATE: APPROVAL > > The following virtual packages have been requested: `pascal-compiler' and > `libc-dev'. > > Some packages like noweb need to depend/suggest a pascal-compiler and we > have at least two pascal compilers now: gpc, and p2c. With that, I think it > would be good to have this virtual package. (Note, that we already have > virtual packages for `c-compiler' and `fortran77-compiler'.) > > The `libc-dev' package has already been used for a while for packages, which > depend on the development package of a libc. > > Unless someone objects, these virtual packages will be added to the > authoritative list.
With the policy on POSIX shells coming up, would a virtual package `sh', or `posix-shell', be appropriate? I think bash and ash could provide it, and possibly others, too (ksh? zsh?). I also think the link /bin/sh could be perfectly managed by the `alternatives' system, with the `smallest' shell (in terms of memory and processor requirements) having the highest priority. Remco
