How about an XB-Meta-Package: dummy package field?
ubuntu at kitterman.com
Fri Feb 15 19:20:46 UTC 2013
Scott Ritchie <scott at open-vote.org> wrote:
>On 2/15/13 2:52 AM, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:35:41PM -0800, Scott Ritchie wrote:
>>> We have (and will continue to have) many transitional dummy packages
>>> with no content. I see two main advantages to flagging them:
>> Were you proposing something like the below? Otherwise the name
>> want to include transitional, as there are meta packages which are
>> right thing to use and not going away:
>> XB-Meta-Package: transitional
>Yes, I had thought that we might also want to mark metapackages that
>aren't transitional as well, perhaps to prefer showing them in Software
>Center. Whether we use the tag "transitional" or "dummy" doesn't
>So it could be like:
> "dummy" -- no files, can be safely removed, don't display in most
>tools, remove at release upgrade time, should be in oldlibs section
> "meta" -- no files, but depends on one or more other packages,
>possibly prefer showing in software center to the depended packages
Don't we already have Section: metapackages. Between that and oldlibs, why do we need more?
Also, for actual metapackages, I'm pretty sure displaying the depends instead is not what we'd want.
More information about the ubuntu-devel