Re: virtual package 'ispell-dictionary'

[Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>]

On Sun, 1 Aug 1999, Julian Gilbey wrote:

> > Hi,
> > >>"Julian" == Julian Gilbey <J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk> writes:
> > 
> >  >> What exactly is required to "resurrect" a proposal? Is it required to wait
> >  >> some amount of time since it was rejected?
> > 
> >  Julian> I don't know.  Sufficient interest might be sufficient, but
> >  Julian> we should
> >  Julian> ask Manoj.
> > 
> >         Umm. What would people say to having to ask for seconds all
> >  over again, and an expectation that there would be an explanation why
> >  the proposer thinks that the new proposal is likely to succeed when
> >  the old one did not? (I don't want to have us mandate that, but it is
> >  reasonable, is it not?)
> > 
> >         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?
> 
> The old proposal was made years (?) ago, and died among the others
> which were expired due to lack of interest.  And now here's some
> interest.  If it's formally proposed again, I'll second it.

Ok, since the procedure for amending policy was not in place when the bug
was submitted years ago, I think it is ok to make a proposal from it now.

I hereby formally propose that we add ispell-dictionary to the list of
virtual packages for "Anything providing a dictionary suitable for
ispell".

I am now looking for seconds for this proposal.

Thanks.

-- 
 "128600f74768469264ff4c64191dae5e" (a truly random sig)