On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 01:41:08PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > I think the current process is that a bunch of maintainers > feel there is a need for a virtual package name, and talk to people > maintaining related packages, and work out some virtual package names > that are then used privately. > > Once the number, and name, of the virtual packages has > stabilized, and the expectation of what all these packages provide in > common is hashed out, these names should be documented -- so that a > new maintainer, starting with a new, package, that could provide or > depend on these virtual packages, has a well known spot to go to to > get the list of established virtual package names. > > I do think we need to re-write the para to state that the list > is merely a registry, of sorts, of established virtual package names. Seconded. -- G. Branden Robinson | To Republicans, limited government Debian GNU/Linux | means not assisting people they branden@debian.org | would sooner see shoveled into mass http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | graves. -- Kenneth R. Kahn
Attachment:
pgpW26d7ErFlh.pgp
Description: PGP signature