Re: Renaming a package
Jules Bean <jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk> writes:
> On Fri, May 12, 2000 at 01:20:56AM +0800, Ian McKellar wrote:
> > What about a dummy `sawmill' package that depends on `sawfish' and contains
> > only some symlinks so peoples .xsession files don't break. This package can
> > be dropped at a later stage. Does that sound like a good plan?
>
> It doesn't need to contain anything at all. THat's what I meant by a
> dummy package.
[...]
> The symlinks, if you want them, should be in the new sawfish package.
Why is this better than Ian's solution? With the symlinks being in the
sawmill package (which contains nothing but), users can choose when
they are ready to remove the compatibility symlinks (or never remove
them).
If the symlinks were in the sawfish package, the maintainer will
probably remove them at some time, which will certainly be too early
for some, too late for others.
--
Robbe
Reply to: