How about an XB-Meta-Package: dummy package field?

[Michael Bienia]

On 2013-02-14 09:12:16 -0800, Scott Ritchie wrote:
> On 2/13/13 10:43 PM, Martin Pitt wrote:
> >Scott Ritchie [2013-02-13 22:35 -0800]:
> >>We have (and will continue to have) many transitional dummy packages
> >>with no content.  I see two main advantages to flagging them:
> >>
> >>1) Lintian could be taught to warn about depending on them rather
> >>than the "real" package
> >>2) Software center could refuse to display them even in the detailed view
> >
> >Don't we already have "Section: oldlibs" for that?

"oldlibs" seems to be right:
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-transition


> I suppose we could keep using that, but are we telling
> lintian/software center to do the right things in this case?

lintian does already have a check for this:
"transitional-package-should-be-oldlibs-extra"


Michael