Colin Phipps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > No, you're wrong. The mailcrypt front end, for example, works with > > both. And that's the case we are talking about. > > It depends how the compatibility works. If it's mailcrypt providing > the compatibility, then it's mailcrypt that should list the > compatible packages, IMHO. Depends: implies more than just > something-like-that-must-be-present, it implies a particular > supporting interface is required for the package to work.
Mailcrypt has separate interfaces to PGP 2.6.x, PGP 5, and GnuPG, in separate source files. > If OTOH mailcrypt is just using a small subset of the commands such > that any reasonable PGP clone should work with it, then the virtual > package is possibly the right way to go. PGP clones usually interoperate on the transmission format level, not on the command-line interface level (if they interoperate at all, of course). > It sounds to me like a bad cure to the wrong problem, policy should just be > clearer that a main package is allowed to depend on an |ed set of packages > providing at least one is in main, IMHO. Yes, this makes sense, I think. -- Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] University of Stuttgart http://cert.uni-stuttgart.de/ RUS-CERT +49-711-685-5973/fax +49-711-685-5898