Agreed. We already did this the hard way with libqt4-maemo5, were lucky enough to spot and react in time with regard to the Web Runtime, but it could be beneficial if we could make that into a policy (it's a sort-of-recommendation now).

Yes ! That is exactly what I'm talking about - we already had complaints people getting turned down from Ovi because of this - now, the thing is that we from *here* do not know which libraries are needed for people wanting to go through Ovi. That's why we feel we need a less ad-hoc process (ideally, get a report of the most requested Extras packages because of which Ovi acceptance failed, or a clear Q&A point in Ovi that tells people that they can come to us and at least ASK for a certain package they might need - and then we can see who is the maintainer, if that is a 'Nokian' package or not, whether it is feasible to push it to the blessed repos down the line, etc, etc).