RE: Proposal: a more general and flexible appoach of packages.
Hi,
On Fri, 11 Dec 1998, Shaleh wrote:
> Nifty idea. Kinda like it. My only beef is that the "user" must know to mail
> libgtk1.1.7@packages.debian.org rather than gtk@packages.debian.org or
> libgtk@packages.debian.org.
True. But I don't think that using libgtk@packages or gtk@packages as an
alias for exactly these purposes would be a terrible practical problem.
In fact, having a gtk "metapackage" would probably not be a bad idea at
all anyway. Any messages intended for libgtk1.1.7 ending up there could
easily be channeled to the right place.
You do have a point however that any foo-<version> package still has the
history problems, not in the physical maintainer aspect, but in the
package name. I'll have to think about that.
> Could we extend this one more step and state that any package depending
> on foo has their maintainer subscribed to foo's mailing list. That was
> when foo changes all who depend on it will be aware. That would be
> absolutely supreme.
Indeed a fine idea. AOL
Cheers,
Joost
Reply to: