Re: Tatsuya Kinoshita 2006-07-29 <[🔎] 20060729.200402.167467225.tats%nobody@tats.iris.ne.jp> > 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 -- cb@df7cb.de | http://www.df7cb.de/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature