Hello. This list seems to be the right place for this ...
BTW: I'm on the list now. ----- Forwarded message from Arthur Korn <arthur> ----- Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 16:28:59 +0200 From: Arthur Korn <arthur> To: Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Bug#66535: proposal of virtual package: syslogd Hello. Chris Waters schrieb: > On Fri, Jun 30, 2000 at 05:12:01PM +0200, Arthur Korn wrote: > > First off, I don't think new virtual packages need a formal proposal > or a bug report. It just says "discuss on debian-policy list". Probably /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/virtual-package-names-list.text.gz needs to be corrected then, because it says there: :The procedure for updating the list is as follows: : :1. Post to debian-devel saying what names you intend to use or :what other changes you wish to make, and file a wish list bug :against the package debian-policy. bash-2.03$ dpkg -s debian-policy Package: debian-policy Version: 3.1.1.1 > That said, I think this is a fine idea. However, I'd rather see a > better name. Most of the virtual packages have longish, descriptive > names: ftp-server, not ftpd, or c-compiler, not cc. I'd rather have > the virtual package be named system-log-daemon. Just a suggestion. I think it would be even better to split up sysklogd into two packages, and then have virtual packages like 'system-log-daemen' and 'linux-kernel-log-daemon' (or would 'kernel-log-daemon' be sufficient? Im thinking on the HURD). This would make the syslog-ng maintainer happy, since syslog-ng uses the klogd provided by syskolgd for kernel-logging. (msyslog will have it's own input module im_linux). I'm not on the debian-policy list. If you feel that this is really needed, I'll subscribe it though. (In fact, im not even a official maintainer yet, but my application is filed.) ciao, 2ri -- When you think that Big Brother is watching you, try boring him to death. ----- End forwarded message ----- ciao, 2ri -- "I didn't know it was impossible when I did it."
