Re: Bug#368551: ITP: xml-security-c -- C++ library for XML Digital Signatures
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Tue, 23 May 2006, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I'd really rather stick with the upstream name,
> Why not ask upstream WHY they are misnaming the library?
> libxml-security-c++ is a perfectly ok and valid name...
I'll ask, but again, this is a library package, so the binary package name
is going to match the name of the library on disk. So really we're only
arguing about the name of the source package.
My guess is that upstream isn't going to be particularly thrilled with the
idea of changing the SONAME and name of the library on disk for aesthetic
reasons, given the backward compatibility issues.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>