Re: Virtual package "editor" gone?
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 10:01:16PM +0100, Christoph Haas wrote:
> One or two years ago we added the 'gvim' virtual package and it still isn't
> listed. Is that document authoritative? Or is it just incomplete for some
> purpose? Or do I need to bribe Manoj with chocolate?
Section 3.6 says
"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. (See also Virtual packages - Provides, Section
The "privately, amongst a cooperating group of packages" part means that
virtual packages don't need to be listed, but the relevant maintainers
can simply agree and start using the virtual package. This is probably
the case for the gvim package.
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>