On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 05:49:05PM +0200, Miros/law Baran wrote: > 25.06.2005 pisze Geert Stappers (stappers@stappers.nl): > > > > > > > I have prefixed the names of the executables with "hx_" to > > > > > > try to avoid name conflicts (this was in the upstream TODO > > > > > > file). > > > > > No, he hasn't done that yet. I went ahead and did it though > > > > because otherwise some of them would have rather common sounding > > > > names, such as "extract", "index", and "count". Is this a > > > > problem? What should I do? > > > > I think you did the right thing, and it's not a problem at all > > > given that upstream will rename the same way eventually. > > > > And I think it is not wise to have W3C software in Debian > > that differs from W3C software. | > | > Let me known when upstream has actually include the hx_ prefix. | > > In what way does this differ from the W3C software? Does it use 0s and > 1s painted in pink, in contrary to the usual W3C pale yellow? > > It is *much* better to prefix the common names than to use the original > ones. Yes, we agree that the hx_ prefix is a good thing. As potential sponsor I have _no_ appetite for large diffs and surely not in a package stating "this W3C software, only renamed" Let me known when upstream has actually include the hx_ prefix. Please keep the above line in a follow-up message. Cheers Geert Stappers
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature