How about an XB-Meta-Package: dummy package field?
steve.langasek at ubuntu.com
Fri Feb 15 19:49:34 UTC 2013
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 02:20:46PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >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.
Section: metapackages has a very specific meaning wrt the package manager
(/etc/apt/apt.conf.d/01autoremove): any package in this section has its
*dependencies* marked as manually installed, such that they're never
accidentally autoremoved. Care should be taken not to overload this section
with metapackages that we don't want to have the same semantics.
I do think the existing oldlibs section already covers the 'dummy' case, at
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek at ubuntu.com vorlon at debian.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the ubuntu-devel