On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 11:09:01AM +0100, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> A word from Etienne M. Gagnon - upstream author (forwarded).
He sent a message because _you_ told him to do so by ccing him in the
middle of something that's only _Debian_ specific. Well, unless
they have something called jikes-sable... [this would be anologous
to someone ccing Microsoft's legal dept saying that they thought
that "LMP - Media Player for Linux" was made by MS]
> I'd like to add that:
> - in the request for wrapper there has been jikes-sablevm name
> requested
Yes, this is true. I used jikes-sable only because it is
shorter.
> - We'd like to have full consistency here, especially in the tool name.
> Using -sable for SableVM is at least inconsistent (see Etienne's
^^^^^^^^
It is __ jikes-sable __ NOT -sable. Please. Otherwise it _cannot_ be
jikes-sablevm either but jikes-SableVM.
> Because Adam seems to be serious on the voting thing - I need to ask
> you to vote "pro change". Else - I'll have to add jikes-sablevm wrapper
> somewhere to SableVM packages and this way - archive bloat will grow.
So.... you are saying it better be your way or else?? Let the people
speak. For Pete's sake. IF they say no, or if there is not enough votes
then the name will not change. I know, democracy is a bitch. But at least
I would hope that you will listen to the people :) [well, in this case
at least 5 people :-] so far I got 4 votes.
If someone were going to change Package names everytime one person
says it might be confusing to people with IQ of room teperature,
_then_ the archive would be bloated. All the Replaces: and Provides:
lines would make dpkg even slower than it is now.
So, let's have no more pointless threats and threads :) I'll post the tally
on Sunday and act accordingly.
- Adam
Attachment:
pgpAP17P5tXyf.pgp
Description: PGP signature