Op ma 05-01-2004, om 14:47 schreef Robert Millan: > 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? Confusing. I read your reply without reading the context first, and thought you were referring to "dpkg-architecture", which is something entirely different... -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org Most people have two reasons for doing anything -- a good reason, and the real reason
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend