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. That makes sense (variation on #4). How about this text? (I'll formalise it as a proposal/diff when people have had a chance to comment) When a new virtual package is needed, the maintainers involved should decide between themselves on what names should be used, and a definition of what requirements should be placed on a package that provides the relevant name. When this has been decided, the new names and descriptions should be submitted to policy (by way of a wishlist bug filed against debian-policy) for inclusion in the list of virtual packages. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing, `. `' | Imperial College, `- -><- | London, UK
Attachment:
pgp7QkzOynYCA.pgp
Description: PGP signature