Re: texlive-basic_2005-1_i386.changes REJECTED
Thiemo Seufer <email@example.com> wrote:
>> I have no problem introducing different names, but only if I see good
>> reasons other than "I like it" or "it is usual like this". To me, the
>> argument on name-sync collection-debiannames is strong enough to keep
>> the current names.
> FWIW, Debian package names prefer e.g. foo-en-uk-doc over
> foo-documentation-ukenglish. This allows to filter documentation
> packages by name (doc-* or *-doc), and following the standardized
> ISO abbreviations also seems to be better than using yet another
I agree with you; however this particular point should not be a reason
for rejecting a package. It is clearly something that has to be
synchronized with upstream, and it not of such severity that the package
couldn't be accepted without such an upstream change. Especially if one
notices that there won't be a new upstream release until autumn 2006.
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich