Matej Vela wrote: > On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 07:24:34 -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > >>On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 10:24:37AM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote: >> >>>That would be ok if they are drop-in replacements, but otherwise you would >>>update an application on a users machine replacing it with one that might have >>>a completely different behaviour than the previous one, and that might not be >>>desired. >> >>OK. I had not considered that. I believe, in that case, your approach >>is more correct. > > > So, should iceme and icepref be removed? > > Thanks, > > Matej > I believe that is the consensus. I have not used either and so am not sure if icewmcp is considered a drop-in replacement. Also, you may want to look at the bug oprhaning icemc. That package may also be a candidate for removal if it is dead upstream or has been subsumed by icewmcp. -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature