emacs -> emacs19. Why?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 25 Jun 1998, Mark W. Eichin wrote:
> Yeah, there's been enough discussion in this context. The decision to
> ditch the "emacs" name as a package name was in fact made for good
> reasons, a while back;
Please, tell me which are those good reasons. I have not found good
reasons in the archives. I'm not saying there is none, just that it would
be nice if you could tell me which are those good reasons when you close
the bug.
> just-before-the-release is the wrong time to revisit it.
Maybe, or maybe not. We still want the upgrade to be as smooth as
possible, do we not?
> As emacs and emacs19 maintainer, I'm closing it, with this
> message.
Ok, but it would be nice if you could tell me at least *one* good reason
to change the name of the package emacs, *once that we have already
changed the virtual package name*.
I also would like to answer to Manoj:
> I can understand that the originator may ``wish'' to have the
> old name retained, but is this an important enough objection to hold
> up Hamm or throw emacs19 out? I think no.
I don't want to hold up hamm nor throw emacs19 out. I think you did not
read the bug report at all, specially the last paragraph. Please read:
[ Follows an edited version of the bug report ]
The old "emacs" package has been removed from hamm just a few days ago.
Now, users upgrading from bo to hamm will surely be confused because of
dselect not automatically selecting emacs19 as a replacement for the old
"emacs". Also, since the old emacs does not work at all in a libc6
environment (because of the rpath thing), users will be surprised that the
old emacs is broken if they do not upgrade (and it is certainly possible
that with the name change the package is *not* upgraded automatically).
Therefore, to make easier the transition from bo to hamm for emacs users,
I think it would be indeed *much* better if we keep the name "emacs" for
emacs19 in hamm and postpone the package name change to slink.
The virtual package name "emacsen" would not have to change. If needed,
the emacs package could Provide: emacs19 for backwards and forwards
compatibility.
[ Note to Brian: This is "important" enough to be fixed before release, if
we agree that it has to be fixed, but not important enough to remove the
package from hamm... Thanks ].
[ Please, followups to 23742@bugs.debian.org and debian-devel only ].
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: latin1
iQCVAgUBNZPlBCqK7IlOjMLFAQGOsgP/a9HxgfgEXRyRPR8rQEhKD5yaFopegXNv
vMnj0RPlkyDKD8jzZHvDKertLZvptRC42ZfjdwE4y8r7aLtSgXcCNsI7bY0T32Ej
Ps7b598ounh8//ZZDAHYyHswGO9++PVquXdLMrITnxFoPCkioxz9ldy3j3gFmj45
zg9DxcKjAio=
=q/2E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: