On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 09:48:29PM +0100, Artur R. Czechowski wrote: > On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 02:35:55PM -0500, Aaron M. Ucko wrote: > > If you're renaming them anyway, why not follow Policy 8.1 and > > s/t1lib/libt1-/ (yielding libt1-1, etc.)? > Yes, I thought about it. But there is no strict rule in Policy, just > recommendation. There are many other packages which do not conform to 8.1, > like: e2fslibs, svgalib, zlib, imlib, aalib, beecrypt, slang, cracklib... > Should I go on? Most of those are pretty old, too. > And last but not least: upstream name is t1lib. I do not like to change it > until it is really needed. No one's asking you to change the name of the source package. > OTOH, if you provide me good arguments why I should change name of t1lib, > and good explanation why a new package, let's say rsplib, does not conform > to this rule, I will not insist anymore. 1) Consistency is good, and makes it easier for users to figure out how the system works. 2) That other developers are ignorant or disrespectful of good packaging practices doesn't mean you should be. (And, just so you know, once a certain branch is merged in my XFree86 SVN repository, you won't be able to use "xlibs" as an example to support your case, either. :) ) -- G. Branden Robinson | Lowery's Law: Debian GNU/Linux | If it jams -- force it. If it branden@debian.org | breaks, it needed replacing anyway. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature