[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: VNC plans.

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

> 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

Reply to: