Subject: VIRTUAL PACKAGES need to be added: awk, nawk

From: Chris Fearnley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 21:37:33 -0400 (EDT)

I see that the virtual-package-names-list.text hasn't been updated
lately :(

As we have already discussed, we need two new virtual packages: awk and
nawk.  A package can be said to provide awk iff /usr/bin/awk exists
and implements the AWK programming language.  A package can be said to
provide nawk iff /usr/bin/nawk exists and implements the AWK language
as described in the AWK book by Aho, Kernighan and Weinberger (perhaps
with any POSIX complient clarifications).

And now we know why I'm not a technical writer :)

The next release of mawk and gawk will provide these two virtual
packages and if I ever get the urge to package up the freely available
AT&T version, it too will use the virtuals.  Once I release my mawk and
gawk packages, I will request that the base package depend on the nawk
virtual package.  Mawk will be part of base and gawk will move into
devel or misc (any suggestions?).

Hopefully, this note will find the virtual-package list maintainer ...

Do Enjoy!

-- 
Christopher J. Fearnley            |    Linux/Internet Consulting
[email-masked], [email-masked]       |    UNIX SIG Leader at PACS
http://www.netaxs.com/~cjf         |    (Philadelphia Area Computer Society)
ftp://ftp.netaxs.com/people/cjf    |    Design Science Revolutionary
"Dare to be Naive" -- Bucky Fuller |    Explorer in Universe

---

From: Chris Fearnley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 12:25:11 -0400 (EDT)

[email-masked] wrote:'
>
>I have just one comment: do we really need two virtual awk packages? Can't we
>just settle on awk *implying that this is nawk* as nobody would want the old
>standard anyway?

Yes, there is no technical reason not to do it this way.  [Unless
someone writes an old awk compatible interpreter --- which as far as I
know no one has done.]  However, the mawk and gawk package both provide
(via update-alternatives) /usr/bin/awk AND /usr/bin/nawk.  Which I feel
is important.  But we could define the "awk" virtual package as
including "awk" and "nawk".

I think you've persuaded me.  I'll only make one virtual package "awk"
which will have the assumptions of nawk as I just described.

Thanks for the suggestion.

---

From: Guy Maor <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 11:33:26 -0500 (CDT)

> Hopefully, this note will find the virtual-package list maintainer ...

There is no maintainer.  The agreed-upon procedure is:
1. discuss the new virtual packages you wish to add on debian-devel.
2. get the file, edit it, and add your new packages.

So since we've already done 1, you can now go do 2.

Guy

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 96 08:59 EDT

Chris> Hopefully, this note will find the virtual-package list maintainer

There is none. See yourself in 
	doc/package-developer/virtual-package-names-list.text

You take the file, add your stuff, and sign the changes at the bottom. C'est
tout. All it asks for is that you discuss the names on debian-devel (which
you just did) and wait some days for comments.

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

---

From: Yves Arrouye <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 00:07:43 +0200

> which will have the assumptions of nawk as I just described.

I'd better like having just one virtual package "nawk" which effectively
holds the assumption that nawk supersedes awk. And packages would depend
on nawk then (if we ever consider having an awk package, this is a mistake
because not all packages need nawk really; but I think it's strange to have
a virtual awk package which actually provides nawk).

Yves.

---

From: Chris Fearnley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 17:18:59 -0400 (EDT)

'Yves Arrouye wrote:'
>a virtual awk package which actually provides nawk).

Hmm, "The AWK Programming Language" by Aho, Kernighan and Weinberger is
not entitled "The NAWK Programming Language" even though it describes
many features unique to nawk (and mawk and gawk too of course).  And
ANSI C is usually just dubbed "C".  I think "awk" generally includes
nawk implicitly and only when context demands does it mean (only) old
awk.  So I prefer the single virtual package "awk" still.

---

From: Christian Hudon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 07:08:02 -0700 (PDT)

> awk.  So I prefer the single virtual package "awk" still.

Likewise here.

And if the distinction is really needed, we can always have an 'old-awk'
virtual package. Not that I think we'll ever need to do that...

  Christian

---

From: Yves Arrouye <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 00:36:19 +0200

> virtual package. Not that I think we'll ever need to do that...

You're right. Nobody will use anything other than nawk, I think.
Yves.