On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 05:21:25PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > 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... Not to mention that the dpkg-* namespace belongs to dpkg, and everybody else can stay the hell out. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature