Re: xlibmesa naming and relationships
On Mon, 2003-02-03 at 00:26, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 12:23:07AM +0100, Marcelo E. Magallon scrawled:
> > On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 10:21:22AM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > > > uhm... why? That doesn't make any sense at all.
> > >
> > > Hysterical raisins, presumably.
> >
> > The raisins explain the 3 but not the 4.
>
> I'm not having packages with a misleading name.
I think you do, xlibmesa4-gl suggests an incompatibility to
xlibmesa3-gl.
> I'm keeping up status quo until I see a good reason to change current
> (and expected) behaviour. So far you haven't provided one.
Some reasons off the top of my head: package name should reflect API, no
need to deal with a gazillion packages in package relationships, ...
As the name is changing anyway, we might as well get it right. What about
xlibmesagl1 (or xlibmesa-gl1, if you insist on the dash)? I'm leaning towards
using that for my next dri-trunk packages.
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer
XFree86 and DRI project member / CS student, Free Software enthusiast
Reply to: