Re: Announcing type-handling
- To: Hamish Moffatt <email@example.com>
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Announcing type-handling
- From: Robert Millan <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 14:47:29 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20040105134729.GB8330@aragorn>
- In-reply-to: <20040101005844.GA5444@cloud.net.au>
- References: <20031229125337.GA8386@aragorn> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20031229215742.GC1222@aragorn> <20031230120345.GA30063@cloud.net.au> <20031230175250.GB1838@aragorn> <20031230235418.GC6037@cloud.net.au> <20031231144900.GB31679@aragorn> <20040101005844.GA5444@cloud.net.au>
On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 11:58:44AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > 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?
> Better, but I think it needs to mention "arch". "dpkg-arch-type"?
Too ugly.. what about dpkg-arch?
"[..] 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)