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