On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 09:56:52AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > Then no, you don't. It was probably a mistake to ever attempt to > codify the list of virtual packages in policy. Agreement amoung the > people involved is sufficient.
I disagree. The nature of the agreement needs to be documented somewhere, so that when a new maintainer joins and packages something that might qualify to use the virtual package, he: * knows there is such a thing * can determine from the definition of the virtual package whether or not his package actually qualifies For instance, someone packaging yet another terminal emulator or window manager for X should not completely ignore the virtual packages for these things, which is more likely if you have to know the right people, instead of having an FM to R. -- G. Branden Robinson | To Republicans, limited government Debian GNU/Linux | means not assisting people they [EMAIL PROTECTED] | would sooner see shoveled into mass http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | graves. -- Kenneth R. Kahn
pgp85yFtitxYy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
