Re: Large-scale java policy violations
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 12:32:51AM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> > Well we have both ways in debian now. Should we allow both but prefer
> > one?
>
> Seeing as we're moving to enforce a single consistent standard, I'm
> personally happier if we only allow one.
Consistency is good. :)
> Looking through what the approximate list of all available java packages
> (see first post to this thread) I find:
>
> libservlet2.2-java
> libxalan2-java
>
> but nothing of the form libname-version-java or lib-name-version-java.
>
> In what sense do you mean we have both ways in debian now? I supsect I'm
> not looking in the right places here.
Kernels was on my mind, but they are not libraries. :)
> Ben.
Ok. Lets standardize on the libfoo[version]-java names.
Regards,
// Ola
--
--------------------- Ola Lundqvist ---------------------------
/ opal@debian.org Björnkärrsgatan 5 A.11 \
| opal@lysator.liu.se 584 36 LINKÖPING |
| +46 (0)13-17 69 83 +46 (0)70-332 1551 |
| http://www.opal.dhs.org UIN/icq: 4912500 |
\ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 /
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: