On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Britton wrote:
> > > Currently we've only had two real excuses for using empty packages: > > for handling splits, and for tasks. It seems a little like people want a > > third sort, just as a collection of related packages that you generally > > want to install at once. This might be just an artifact of "recommends" > > not doing anything anymore, or it might be a real valid use. > > That is the big concern I have with the quick invention of a hierarchical > task system or the like is that it seems like it would likely end up > redundant with what we already have. Getting a little bit off task-packages topic, but on the topic of 'empty' packages: Could I make a package that: pre-depends on other packages (gcc and binutils-multiarch); includes its entire functionality through debconf; and is 'empty' in that it does not include any files except under /usr/share/doc/<package>? Personally, I think it would be an amazing misuse of debconf, but would there be any actual policy problems with it? I'm afraid I don't yet grok policy well enough to tell for myself.
