On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 10:01:16PM +0100, Christoph Haas wrote: > One or two years ago we added the 'gvim' virtual package and it still isn't > listed. Is that document authoritative? Or is it just incomplete for some > purpose? Or do I need to bribe Manoj with chocolate?
Section 3.6 says "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. (See also Virtual packages - Provides, Section 7.4)" The "privately, amongst a cooperating group of packages" part means that virtual packages don't need to be listed, but the relevant maintainers can simply agree and start using the virtual package. This is probably the case for the gvim package. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
