Re: more overly-generic package names from gnustep
On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 05:15:18PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> If yes, I would say: Keep the package name as it is (and get in contact
> with the xpdf and policy guys, create a virtual package and an
> alternatives entry "pdf-viewer"). If no, and pdfviewer depends on the
> tustep infrastructure to be useful - then I'd say keep the elegant and
> aesthetical way for some other competitor of xpdf.
There's already a pdf-viewer virtual package, which xpdf, gpdf and
gv (at least) provide. As to an alternatives entry, is that necessary?
It is already possible to launch a PDF viewer through the MIME system
eg "see /path/to/my.pdf".
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@debian.org> <hamish@cloud.net.au>
Reply to: