Subject: New virtual packages suggestion

From: Yves Arrouye <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 15:02:53 +0200

Hello,

I propose to add the following virtual packages:

  - gnu-make    useful for packages like kernel-package and my new
                compress-package (not yet released) that *need* a GNU make
                to be used.

  - pdf-viewer, pdf-preview     similar to their postscript- counterpart,
		but for PDF files. For example, xpdf would provide only
		pdf-viewer while ghostscript would provide both if it has
		been compiled with the correct drivers.
		  Such virtual packages could be used by packages that
		either only contain documents in PDF format (they'll
		depends: it) or provide such files (they'll suggests:
		or recommends: it for the doc to be readbale).

  - compress	(or bsd-compress, please comment)	indicate that the
		package provide a true BSD compress command. Needed by my
		new compress-package, and useful for packages that can't
		be satisfied by compress being a synonym of gzip (though
		in the absence of an official Debian compress package, they
		should only recommends: it, certainly).

Yves.

--

---

From: [email-masked] (Kai Henningsen)
Date: 21 Jul 1996 22:22:00 +0200

>                 compress-package (not yet released) that *need* a GNU make

Do we have (or expect to have) more than one package that provides "make"?  
Otherwise, I don't see the use.

> 		should only recommends: it, certainly).

Again, do we have or expect to have more than one package providing  
compress? If not, what's the use?

MfG Kai

---

From: "Brian C. White" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 23:09:32 -0400

> Otherwise, I don't see the use.

Actually, changing the name of the make package to "gnumake" might not
be too bad of an idea.  There are several versions of make around.  While
I see little reason for other versions of make, Debian has several
instances of redundant packages.  I mean, why bother with any other
editors when "emacs" is available?  <runs away laughing before he gets
lynched>

You could make a case for virtual package "make", instead.

                                        Brian
                               ( [email-masked] )

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In theory, theory and practice are the same.  In practice, they're not.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 96 14:43 EDT

"gnu-make" is not needed, we are (again :-) a GNU/Linux system so that we can
assume existence of GNU packages, especially core ones as make. After all,
even the pristine kernel sources depend on it.

I don't like "compress" either because it cannot be a regular package for the
copyright mess. And I already know that Marek will now send a mail :-)

Being the xpdf maintainer, I like "pdf-viewer" but don't really see the need
as there are no system documents (yet ?) in pdf format. But it wouldn't do any
harm.

-- 
Dirk Eddelb"uttel                             http://qed.econ.queensu.ca/~edd

---

From: [email-masked] (Emilio Lopes)
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 96 17:58 EST

>>>>> "YA" == Yves Arrouye <[email-masked]> wrote:

YA> Hello,
YA> I propose to add the following virtual packages:

YA> ... 

I would also suggest "emacs" or something like that. This will be
necessary when we have xemacs ready. Things like "calc", "vm", "w3"
etc. could depend on it, which would be provided by both GNU Emacs and
XEmacs.

Emilio.

-- 
                 Emilio C. Lopes <mailto:[email-masked]>
               Instituto de Fisica da Universidade de Sao Paulo
             Caixa Postal 66318, 05389-970 Sao Paulo - SP, BRAZIL
              Phone: (+55) (11) 818-6724 (Voice) / 818-6715 (Fax)

---

From: Yves Arrouye <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 00:41:39 +0200

> compress? If not, what's the use?

Yes, we have because packages with a compress command can be built from
various sources, at the user discretion, without control because noone
will relase *the* ;-) compress binary package because of potential
licensing problems.

Yves.

(This is discussed in more detail in another of my mails.)

---

From: [email-masked] (Emilio Lopes)
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 96 18:54 EST

>>>>> "ECL" == Emilio Lopes <[email-masked]> wrote:

Yes, that was me.

YA> Hello,

YA> ... 

ECL> I would also suggest "emacs" or something like that. This will be
ECL> necessary when we have xemacs ready. Things like "calc", "vm",
ECL> "w3" etc. could depend on it, which would be provided by both GNU
ECL> Emacs and XEmacs.

Sometime after I posted this I remembered that Xemacs already coms
with w3 and vm... But of course there are other elisp packages that
don't come with xemacs.

Emilio.