[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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



On August 1, 2006 at 1:04PM +0100,
ian (at davenant.greenend.org.uk) wrote:

> 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.

Thanks for the clarification.

The meaning of `pinentry' is clear, and variants of pinentry-* are
currently maintained by a single maintainer.  I'll tell the
maintainer of pinentry-* to provide `pinentry' with my package.

Thanks,
--
Tatsuya Kinoshita

Attachment: pgpN9VO1vmkD0.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: