Re: virtual package 'ispell-dictionary'

[David Coe <david.coe@someotherplace.org>]

Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> 
>    ... So, if folks agree to this, I would say that we need the
>  proposer and seconds (and an explanation) in place before the status
>  of the bug is changed. Comments?

I'm the prospective proposer.  My first sentence was "I don't know
how important this is..." and I really don't want you or me or anyone
else to spend a lot of time on this.

Maybe the real question is how large or diverse a "cooperating group 
of packages" must be to not qualify for the parenthetical exclusion in:

> Packages MUST NOT use virtual package names (except privately, amongst
> a cooperating group of packages) unless they have been agreed upon and
> appear in this list.

(And, I'm curious, what does "privately" mean in this context?)

But don't let me open a can of worms that's better left alone; Ispell
and friends have gotten along fine without an officially-declared
virtual package, and I'm sure they can continue to do so if we leave
it the way it is.

Thanks.