On Fri, 2004-03-26 at 05:43, Havoc Pennington wrote: > On Thu, 2004-03-25 at 01:31, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > [kov]@[beterraba] $ dpkg -S /usr/lib/libgnome-2.so.0 > > > libgnome2-0: /usr/lib/libgnome-2.so.0 > > > > I would have called this binary package libgnome-2-0. > > > > I find the "-2" part disgusting, but it's a disgustingness that is > > forced upon you by upstream. > > I've never heard a convincing argument against > http://ometer.com/parallel.html, just grumbling about aesthetics from > people who don't understand the problems being solved. Well, it's disgusting (at least for me) because when we apply DP we got libgnome-2-0 package name, but it has nothing to do with content of /usr/lib/ and problems it solve or not. It has nothing to do with upstream library naming, only with debian package naming, ie. thing which is disgusting is resulting debian package name. O. -- Ondřej Surý <ondrej@sury.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part