On August 1, 2006 at 1:04PM +0100, ian (at davenant.greenend.org.uk) wrote:
> Tatsuya Kinoshita writes ("Re: virtual packages `pinentry' and
> `pinentry-x11'"):
> > Hmm, I have not yet understand the policy 3.6:
> >
> > | All packages should use virtual package names where appropriate, and
> > | arrange to create new ones if necessary. They should not use virtual
> > | package names (except privately, amongst a cooperating group of
> > | packages) unless they have been agreed upon and appear in the list of
> > | virtual package names.
> >
> > Could anyone rephrase "except privately, amongst a cooperating
> > group of packages"?
>
> When I wrote that I meant the situation where the maintainer(s) of the
> cooperating packages are the same people, or have discussed it with
> each other.
>
> The point is that we need to know what the virtual package name
> means. For the ones listed in policy the policy says what they mean.
> If you have a pile of obscure packages which no-one else cares about
> then you don't need to bother writing it down. If you have an
> intermediate situation then some communication between the various
> maintainers is needed.
Thanks for the clarification.
The meaning of `pinentry' is clear, and variants of pinentry-* are
currently maintained by a single maintainer. I'll tell the
maintainer of pinentry-* to provide `pinentry' with my package.
Thanks,
--
Tatsuya Kinoshita
pgpB03Zo4GTZZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
