| Enrico Zini 2005-10-29, 5:52 pm |
| On Sat, Oct 29, 2005 at 04:18:44AM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
>
>
> Would it be unreasonable to ask that metapackages have to be _empty_,
> i.e., that all their functionality it's in their control file?
>
> Because the idea of tagging 'python' as a metapackage, when it
> provides the Python FAQ, the Python Policy, and more importantly,
> /usr/bin/python, does not sound too good to me.
Good point. One sure thing (which was my point in the mail) is that a
metapackage is not a 'dummy' package in that it's useful to keep it
installed. So we can leave my service annoucement behind and discuss
what is a metapackage.
In the CDD world, a metapackage is something that pulls in other
packages as a convenience, but can indeed contain files. One could make
a simple CDD by creating a metapackage that pulls in the needed
application and also contains some documentation and branding.
One could say that a metapackage wouldn't particularly break if its
dependencies aren't installed, but it would just be useless. On this
definition, 'python' wouldn't be a metapackage in that it would break
without its dependencies (i.e., they're real, sound dependencies).
This could be a good time to formalize a good definition of metapackage
and dummy package. Cc-ing to debian-custom as metapackages are quite a
substantial topic over there.
Ciao,
Enrico
--
GPG key: 1024D/797EBFAB 2000-12-05 Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org>
|