>> On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 21:13:33 +0100, >> Martin Godisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2003 at 13:18:10 -0600, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: >> From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> > If it will depend on inetd-superserver you will be sure that >> > some package will provide /usr/sbin/update-inetd, and that's >> > everything your package needs to know. >> >> Given that, I am closing this report. Additionally, you do not >> need the virtual package _first_, you can set up a group of >> cooperating packages using a virtual package name, and _then_ ask >> that to be documented in policy. > To what group of cooperating packages does noffle belong? The group of packages that provide and use inetd-superserver > I think this bug should be closed when inetd-superserver is > contained in the virtual package list. This bug report did not ask for inetd-superserver. The people who are involved in implementing the protocol required to use that cirtual package shall doubtless ask for it to be included in the list when they are good and ready. Just creating a virtual-package name is not enough: there havbe to be some guidelines about minimal adherence to some interface, and perhaps some hint of a criteria of eliginility (see the problem we had with terminal-emultor -- turns out, we mean that you need o behave like xterm before yoiu can provide terminal-emulator). Now, usually, most of the details of eligibility and minimal criteria are worked out in the sample implementation informally before asking for a virtual package to be added to the list. manoj -- "Linux poses a real challenge for those with a taste for late-night hacking (and/or conversations with God)." (By Matt Welsh) Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C