(Imported from Trac #559, reported by guest on 2009-06-02)
Following a discussion between Duncan Coutts and myself on meta-packages (packages that are empty and only depend on other packages), we came to the conclusion that it only ever makes sense to depend on a meta-package if the package is itself a meta-package.
This is to support the case where we want to provide a meta-package that is a superset of another meta-package. For instance, we could want to provide a "happs-base" meta-package, depending on the basic packages that every happs installation needs, and another "happs-withlotsofstuff" package, depending on "happs-base" plus some other packages for conveniency.
In the case we depend on a meta-package but we're not a meta-package ourself, our dependency is necessarily incorrect, in the sense that we actually depend on less than the meta-package, and we should list those specific dependencies ourselves. Enforcing that restriction on hackage would prevent such abuses.
Closing as there's been no activity in years.
We're cleaning up the bug tracker to make it useful again and are thus closing bugs that haven't seen any activity in a long time. Please re-open (or file a new bug) if the problem reappears.