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

[Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk>]

Tatsuya Kinoshita writes ("Re: virtual packages `pinentry' and `pinentry-x11'"):
> Hmm, I have not yet understand the policy 3.6:
> 
> |      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.
> 
> Could anyone rephrase "except privately, amongst a cooperating
> group of packages"?

When I wrote that I meant the situation where the maintainer(s) of the
cooperating packages are the same people, or have discussed it with
each other.

The point is that we need to know what the virtual package name
means.  For the ones listed in policy the policy says what they mean.
If you have a pile of obscure packages which no-one else cares about
then you don't need to bother writing it down.  If you have an
intermediate situation then some communication between the various
maintainers is needed.

Ian.