Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > ... So, if folks agree to this, I would say that we need the > proposer and seconds (and an explanation) in place before the status > of the bug is changed. Comments?
I'm the prospective proposer. My first sentence was "I don't know how important this is..." and I really don't want you or me or anyone else to spend a lot of time on this. Maybe the real question is how large or diverse a "cooperating group of packages" must be to not qualify for the parenthetical exclusion in: > Packages MUST NOT use virtual package names (except privately, amongst > a cooperating group of packages) unless they have been agreed upon and > appear in this list. (And, I'm curious, what does "privately" mean in this context?) But don't let me open a can of worms that's better left alone; Ispell and friends have gotten along fine without an officially-declared virtual package, and I'm sure they can continue to do so if we leave it the way it is. Thanks.
