Hi,
Am Freitag, den 24.07.2009, 13:03 +0100 schrieb Iain Lane:
> On 23 Jul 2009, at 02:50, Trent W. Buck wrote:
> > Why can't it just be "agda"? Even if there's a separate library
> > package, that would have the source name "haskell-agda" and binary
> > names
> > "libghc6-agda-{dev,prof,doc}", so there'd be no conflict.
>
> Actually the library source package is called "agda" :) I wasn't
> actually aware of this policy when packaging. My apologies. If agda-
> executable is generally considered to be a bad name then agda-cli it
> is. I haven't pushed to alioth yet anyway.
given the possible confusion with -cli and mono (which I think is an
issue), there is also the relatively common variant "agda-bin".
Greetings,
Joachim
--
Joachim "nomeata" Breitner
Debian Developer
nomeata@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C
JID: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil