On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 01:49:33PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote: > 0) Start using alternatives for vnc. > > 0.1) Link svncviewer staically with libvncauth instead > of dynamically. > > 1) Package tightvnc as: > tightvncserver, provides vncserver > tight[x?]vncclient, provides vncviewer > tightvnc-doc > > The hard part is to test that they can coexist. Why do they need to coexist with the other implementation? They could simply conflict. > 2) Change the vnc package to realvnc > realvncserver, provides vncserver > realvncviewer, provides vncviewer > vnc-common (I have to check what's in there). These names suck. They imply that the other implementation is not real. Maybe something involving 'vanilla' would be better. > 3) Ask for the removal of the old vnc packages. For one release, make them metapackages that depend on the tightvnc packages - that way people who do nothing will continue to have the same packages that they always did (I presume that vnc* is tightvnc in woody). > 4) Change name of vnc-java to realvnc-java > > 5) Package tightvnc-java. Same thing applies. > 2) Do I have to ask for vncserver and vncviewer as they > become virtual packages? Parse error. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing, `. `' | Imperial College, `- -><- | London, UK
Attachment:
pgpFD7rOecnuX.pgp
Description: PGP signature