ubuntu-desktop metapackage - options?

[Colin Watson]

On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 01:32:42PM +0000, Alec Wright wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-01-01 at 16:44 +0100, John Nilsson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-01-01 at 11:25 +0200, Sami Haahtinen wrote:
> > > Best option you have is to create a patched alternative
> > > ubuntu-desktop package with your own packages.
> > 
> > Why not just "depend" on virtual packages like "supported-mua"
> > "supported-browser" and so on, and have packages like firefox
> > provide supported-browser?
> 
> I like that idea. What does everyone else think about this?

It's not implementable within the current design of the metapackages
without some interesting germinate hacking. It also has interesting
implications for e.g. the Canonical support department, who offer
desktop support for systems with ubuntu-desktop installed; making that
metapackage considerably more flexible would imply training them in all
the possible alternatives.

I think development work would be better concentrated on making more
packages coinstallable so that there's less need to remove the
metapackages.

-- 
Colin Watson                                       [cjwatson at ubuntu.com]