Re: Virtual package httpd-with-cgi-suppport.
On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 02:07:53PM +0100, Jules Bean wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 06:40:49PM +0200, Uwe Hermann wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 12:26:32PM +0200, Uwe Hermann wrote:
> > > Agreed. I'll use 'httpd-cgi'. Bugs will be filed later this day (or
> > > tomorrow, in case I don't find enough time today).
> >
> > Someone proposed to me (via private mail) to use httpd-with-cgi, as it's
> > more descriptive and length doesn't matter anyways as virtual packages
> > don't show up in dpkg listings...
> >
> > Anyone against this?
>
> Yes.
>
> It is inconsistent with pgp-i, mutt-i, gs-pdfencrypt.
Not to belabour the point, but the only inconsistency immediately
obvious is that those three have one dash whereas httpd-with-cgi has
two. :-) Is that the inconsistency you mean, or is there something
deeper?
FWIW, I can't guess what either of those three examples mean, nor can
I find them in debian-policy/virtual-package-names-list.txt.gz (from
debian-policy package 3.5.6.0). Is there a more authoritative source?
Incidentally, there are already virtual package names with two and
even three dashes, e.g. linux-kernel-log-daemon.
> I think httpd-cgi is pretty clear...
It was me who proposed httpd-with-cgi, because I think it is
unambiguous at first glance. The shorter httpd-cgi, on the other
hand, might be taken to refer to "CGI programs for httpd".
-Steve
--
by Rocket to the Moon,
by Airplane to the Rocket,
by Taxi to the Airport,
by Frontdoor to the Taxi,
by throwing back the blanket and laying down the legs ...
- They Might Be Giants
Reply to: