Re: more overly-generic package names from gnustep
Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org> schrieb:
> 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.
Good, I missed that.
> As to an alternatives entry, is that necessary?
Probably not - I don't care.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie
Reply to: