On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 04:37:15PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa 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. > > > > That sounds reasonably good, and documents current better > practice. > > This sentence is vague whether or not the name can be > used before it is included in the policy, and I think > "deciding" includes already using the name, so that should > be documented as well.
So what we have is (I made some modifications): "All packages should use virtual package names where appropriate. 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 (this step is not mandatory during the decision period), the new name 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. A package is not allowed to have or provide a name listed in the list of virtual package names unless the requirements for this virtual package name is fullfilled." The old text follows: "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. (See also Virtual packages - Provides, Section 7.4)" In addition to this I have one more suggestion, and that is that virtual package names in the list is reserved for virtual package names only. With this additional thing (this might break things so that is why I add it as an additional thing) some conflict issues can be resolved. Regards, // Ola > > > regards, > junichi > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- --------------------- Ola Lundqvist --------------------------- / [EMAIL PROTECTED] Annebergsslingan 37 \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 654 65 KARLSTAD | | +46 (0)54-10 14 30 +46 (0)70-332 1551 | | http://www.opal.dhs.org UIN/icq: 4912500 | \ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 / ---------------------------------------------------------------
