Re: Virtual packages

[Junichi Uekawa <dancer@netfort.gr.jp>]

> 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.
> 

That sounds reasonably good, and documents current better 
practice.

This sentence is vague whether or not the name can be 
used before it is included in the policy, and I think
"deciding" includes already using the name, so that should
be documented as well.



regards,
	junichi