Let me take this discussion on another tangent that what the current thread was aim'd at... I'm currently working on the fwbuilder package which I've already found a sponsor... In talking with my sponsor we both agree that using virtual names for the build is appropriate... Reading the virtual-package-names-list.text in the debian-policy I would agree as well as it states "New packages MUST use virtual package names where appropriate" and this would seem appropriate... The fwbuilder package is a multi-binary with the GUI and several backend policy compilers... As you really only need one policy compiler but there are several available and more could be written I felt a backend virtual name would be appropriate (ie- fwbuilder-backend)... Then it was suggest'd that other frontends could be written so plan'd on using one for the GUI as well (ie- fwbuilder-frontend)... However if I look at the debian-policy further it states a package should not use a virtual package name "except privately, amongst a cooperating group of packages"... This raises the flag if the choice of the virtual name used with multiple packages based on the same source falls under the first or second clause... Is this something which should then be thrown through the procedures list'd or can this naming be done without the extra leg-work? Respectfully, Jeremy T. Bouse -- ,-----------------------------------------------------------------------------, |Jeremy T. Bouse, CCNA - UnderGrid Network Services, LLC - www.UnderGrid.net | | Public PGP/GPG fingerprint and location in headers of message | | If received unsigned (without requesting as such) DO NOT trust it! | | undrgrid@UnderGrid.net - NIC Whois: JB5713 - Jeremy.Bouse@UnderGrid.net | `-----------------------------------------------------------------------------'
Attachment:
pgpMenODh5UoV.pgp
Description: PGP signature