Jesus M. Gonzalez-Barahona wrote: > However, I'm a bit concerned with users of cil being surprised to find > that "cil" is a different thing... Anybody sees this as a problem? Is > there anything about this in Policy? (I looked for it, but didn't found > anything relevant). Well, assuming users upgrade woody->sarge->etch without skipping sarge, they'll not have a cil package once the sarge upgrade is done (assuming they don't just keep the old one from woody, but that's what the replaces/conflicts is for). However, I'd think it's better to not reuse the name. For example, users running a mixed sarge/etch system with cl-cil from sarge will not be able to install cil. This, and other concerns about namespace pollution (which really is the issue here), could make it preferable to use the cinterlang name. Cheers T. -- Thomas Viehmann, <http://thomas.viehmann.net/>
Attachment:
pgpwgglLX5lD1.pgp
Description: PGP signature