Re: virtual packages `pinentry' and `pinentry-x11'

[Tatsuya Kinoshita <tats@vega.ocn.ne.jp>]

On July 29, 2006 at 1:18PM +0200,
myon (at debian.org) wrote:

> > Should `pinentry' and `pinentry-x11' be added to 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.

Thanks for the commnet.

BTW, I maintain mew-beta-bin package, and new version of
mew-beta-bin package includes a simple pinentry program
`/usr/bin/mew-pinentry'.  It can be used as `pinentry'.

At the moment, should `pinentry' be added to the list of virtual
package names?  If so, I'll file a wishlist bug against debian-policy.

--
Tatsuya Kinoshita

Attachment: pgpEEk25HU8G3.pgp
Description: PGP signature