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

Bug#117916: debian-policy: New virtual package httpd-cgi.



>>>>> "Chris" == Chris Waters <xtifr@debian.org> writes:

    Chris> This part of policy is not very clear.  As I read it, you
    Chris> don't need to make a formal proposal for new virtual
    Chris> package names (or menu categories); you just have to
    Chris> discuss the proposal on d-policy.  If nobody complains,
    Chris> you're in.  This is, I believe, the reason that the virtual
    Chris> package list (and the menu tree) are kept as separate
    Chris> documents: so that they can be updated separately.

>From zless /usr/doc/debian-policy/virtual-package-names-list.txt.gz:

[...]

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.

[...]

The procedure for updating the list is as follows:

[...]

3. Mail the maintainer of the virtual package name list (which is the
   Debian Policy list <debian-policy@lists.debian.org>) notifying them
   of the consensus reached (or your suggestions if noone objected).
   Please update the bug report at the same time (retitling the bug to
   [ACCEPTED] ....

   Please include a proposed brief description of the new virtual name(s)
   for the list.  The list maintainer will then post the new list to
   debian-devel and upload it to the FTP site.

4. Go and use the new or changed names.
[...]

I thought this was clear enough myself (however I did truncate
steps 1 and 2 so read the document yourself).

    Chris> As for the proposal itself, "http-cgi" seems like a
    Chris> reasonable name, and a reasonable virtual package.  The
    Chris> only thing I'd ask is this be added to the daemons *before*
    Chris> any packages try to use it as a dependency.  Get in touch
    Chris> with the httpd maintainers, and make sure they're ready and
    Chris> willing to do this, and (if no one has objected by that
    Chris> time) we should be go.

-- 
Brian May <bam@debian.org>



Reply to: