Andres Suffield wrote: > That makes sense (variation on #4). How about this text? (I'll > formalise it as a proposal/diff when people have had a chance to > comment) > > When a new virtual package is needed, the maintainers involved should > decide between themselves on what names should be used, and a > definition of what requirements should be placed on a package that > provides the relevant name. When this has been decided, the new names > and descriptions should be submitted to policy (by way of a wishlist > bug filed against debian-policy) for inclusion in the list of virtual > packages.
I have a (minor) comment: There is etablished practice, for a libxxxX-dev package to Provides: the virtual package libxxx-dev. For example libreadline4-dev Provides: libreadline-dev. This make sense, since we generally support only one libxxxX-dev at a time, so this allow to 'apt-get install libxxx-dev' without caring what is the current X value. I think your wording do not take into account this kind of virtual packages. Also I am not sure if they are in the scope of the policy. Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> There is no record of the [EMAIL PROTECTED] package, and no bugs have been filed against it.
