Re: log4j version
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 10:58:51AM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> >
> > Shouldn't it be liblog4j-java as log4j is the name of the library?
>
> Well the software is pronounced log for java. It could be named
> liblog4j-java too but I can not see why the extra j should be there.
>
If the package is named liblog4-java than anyone doing a
'dpkg -l *log4j*' will not find the package.
Although the extra j is redundant, it is part of the original library's
name and should be kept.
Jesse
Reply to: