Re: Announcing type-handling
On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 10:54:18AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> I think TYPE makes sense in the context of dpkg-architecture, but not by
> itself.
>
> Consider arch-type-handling, as that is quite obvious to me.
> type-handling is going to be a non-stop source of confusion.
Well, since packages are not expected to [Build-]Depend on this package
directly, but rather only on the virtual packages it Provides, changing
the name shouldn't be much of a problem.
How does "dpkg-type" sound to you?
--
Robert Millan
"[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the
thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he
gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work."
-- J.R.R.T., Ainulindale (Silmarillion)
Reply to: