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

Re: VNC plans.

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 07:11:47AM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Agreed! The problem is that (as people have told already) the
> new (the same crew as far as I know) upstream call themself realvnc...
> I think I stick to the upstream name. An other solution is to
> not change the name and make it provide rfbserver and rfbclient.
> Maybe that is not a bad solution after all. :) It makes it less
> hard for me ;)

Sounds like a plan. Technical reasons are always better than aesthetic

> > > 2) Do I have to ask for vncserver and vncviewer as they
> > >    become virtual packages?
> > 
> > Parse error.
> Policy requirement. Do I have to have this in official virtual
> package list (I maintain all the packages right now, including
> rfb if I want to)? Well I will probably ask for it anyway, but that
> is assuming that I get it to work at all.

Then no, you don't. It was probably a mistake to ever attempt to
codify the list of virtual packages in policy. Agreement amoung the
people involved is sufficient.

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing,
 `. `'                          | Imperial College,
   `-             -><-          | London, UK

Reply to: