> On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Julian Gilbey wrote:
>
> > > I don't know how important this is, but there's a de-facto
> > > virtual package, ispell-dictionary, in use for quite some
> > > time by the ispell and i* dictionary packages, but not
> > > listed in virtual-package-names-list.text
> >
> > There's a rejected proposal to implement this. See if you can find it
> > (on http://www.debian.org/Bugs/db/pa/ldebian-policy.html if I remember
> > correctly), resurrect it and second it. It'll probably then pass.
>
> Yes it's bug #8221.
>
> Apparently you said the "ispell packages working together" was enough and
> Manoj retitled the bug into "rejected".
Separate things. I said that, as the ispell packages could be taken
as co-operating packages, we probably didn't need to modify the
virtual packages list. Manoj retitled it to rejected as an old report
which hadn't been acted upon.
> I think adding ispell-dictionary to the list would not make harm anyway,
> and would make happy a lot of people, and would avoid useless discussions
> about ispell-dictionary being an "approved" virtual package name or not.
> (For example, it would avoid Bug#8221 against ispell :-).
I totally agree, and would second a resurrected proposal.
> What exactly is required to "resurrect" a proposal? Is it required to wait
> some amount of time since it was rejected?
I don't know. Sufficient interest might be sufficient, but we should
ask Manoj.
Julian
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, QMW, Univ. of London. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://www.debian.org/~jdg
