[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       debian-devel
Subject:    Re: [RFC] new virtual package names for optical discs burning applications
From:       Hubert Chan <uhoreg () debian ! org>
Date:       2006-11-21 19:31:19
Message-ID: 87y7q4ppfc.fsf () evinrude ! uhoreg ! ca
[Download RAW message or body]

George Danchev wrote:

> On Tuesday 21 November 2006 19:54, Hubert Chan wrote:
>> It depends on what the virtual package is meant for.  If it is meant for
>> users, then command-line compatibility may not be so important (as long
>> as it has a sane command line).  But if it is meant for dependencies
>> from cd burning frontends, which may need to set all sorts of different
>> options, then you definitely need command-line compatibility, or else
>> those tools will break.

> Such discriminations could be managed at the frontend's level and
> shouldn't be a problem since a decent frontend (i.e. client) might
> pass app-specific options (if there are any and it is really sensible
> to do so) to the low-level binary it spawns to actually do the
> burning.

That's definitely true, but it doesn't help in terms of dependencies.
In this case, a frontend can only depend on those backends that it
actually does support.  Having a generic cd-burner pseudopackage doesn't
help ensure that the frontend can actually work with the backend that is
installed.  If you install a cd burning backend that your frontend
doesn't know how to deal with, the package is broken.

-- 
Hubert Chan <uhoreg@debian.org> -- Jabber: hubert@uhoreg.ca
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA         http://www.uhoreg.ca/
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7  5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]