Mike Gabriel [02/Sep 8:24pm GMT] wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> assuming this request falls under Debian Policy, Section 3.6 [1]...
> So, here comes a request for feedback on the below. (Thanks!)
>
> Also, its (sec 3.6) exception ("except privately, amongst a
> cooperating group of packages") might apply here. If so, please let me
> know.
>
> The context...
>
> Guido Berhörster identified a hen-and-egg problem with the
> debian-edu-artwork src:pkg described in #1054338 [2].
>
> There is now a solution at hand [3a,b] that introduces a virtual
> package of the name "debian-edu-artwork" and all known artwork theme
> packages "debian-edu-artwork-<foo>" will have a `Provides:
> debian-edu-artwork` in their d/control file.
>
> Currently, there are two src:pkgs known that will provide
> "debian-edu-artwork" (debian-edu-artwork src:pkg and
> debian-edu-artwork-legacy src:pkg).
>
> So, this basically seems like a small set of private src:pkgs to me,
> all maintained by the same team ([email protected]).
>
> Q1: Does this `Provides: debian-edu-artwork` addition to the theme
> pkgs require debian-edu-artwork to be added to the authoritative list
> of virtual package names [4]?
I don't think it's needed, given it's just two packages under the same
team.
--
Sean Whitton
