* Ian Jackson ([email protected]) [140322 00:39]: > (resending because of some 8-bit header damage) > > Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#717076: libjpeg draft resolution"): > > So if you really want to prevent using a supermajority, I suggest > > you write is so that you at least don't mention the other package > > by name but make it more general. > > Seriously ? > > > I also suggest you don't mention the name libjpeg-dev directly but > > instead use words to describe it so that it still applies when it > > needs to be renamed for whatever reason.
> In this particular case we have two packages both of which want to > claim the libjpeg-dev virtual package name, which for technical > reasons ought to be provided by only one of them. Clearly this is a > question of overlapping jurisdictions. IMHO this is even one of the examples of the constitution for overlapping jurisdiction: | for example, [...] about who should be the maintainer for a package Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
