Re: Tatsuya Kinoshita 2006-07-29 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Should `pinentry' and `pinentry-x11' be added to the list of > virtual package names? > > I've discovered that the virtual package `pinentry' is provided by > pinentry-curses, pinentry-gtk, pinentry-gtk2 and pinentry-qt, and > the virtual package `pinentry-x11' is provided by pinentry-gtk, > pinentry-gtk2 and pinentry-qt, but `pinentry' and `pinentry-x11' > are not found in the list of virtual package names.
Policy: 3.6. Virtual packages
All packages should use virtual package names where appropriate, and
arrange to create new ones if necessary. They should not use virtual
package names (except privately, amongst a cooperating group of
packages) unless they have been agreed upon and appear in the list of
virtual package names.
I think pinentry* is a clear case of a "cooperating group of packages".
The policy could be updated though on what "privately" means.
Christoph
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.df7cb.de/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
