On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 03:03:09PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > 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.
These arguments are good, but...
All packages which use this library depend on t1lib1. Of course, I can
provide dummy t1lib1 package which depends on libt1-1 but I do not like
this idea. Dependency chain: other package -> dummy t1lib1 -> libt1-1
looks really ugly. If I removed t1lib1 package it would result in grave bugs
in all dependant packages. So, I would not like to do it before sarge release.
OTOH Build-dependency chain: other package -> dummy t1lib-dev -> t1lib1-dev
also looks bad, but it concerns less machines: only autobuilders and people,
which want to rebuild package for themselves.
The 1.3.1 release is really old. I would like to have it in a good condition
for sarge, then focus on 5.0.0 and, later, ask to remove 1.3.1. The 5.0.0
package will be consistent with DP 8.1. BTW, how should package with
development files be named: t1lib5-dev or libt1-5-dev?
I hope, this is satisfactory.
Regards
Artur
--
opadły mgły i miasto ze snu się budzi, góra czmycha już noc
ktoś tam cicho czeka by ktoś powrócił, do gwiazd jest bliżej niż krok
pies się włóczy popod murami bezdomny, niesie się tęsknota czyjaś
na świata cztery strony
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature