On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 09:41:04PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 20:17, Branden Robinson wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 02:00:54PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > > > Mmm, I'm liking libgl1-xfree86. My original name for the DRM sources was > > > > xfree86-drm-src, but that later got renamed. > > > > > > Not too bad, methinks. > > > > I don't like it. Are these things really XFree86 X xserver specific, or > > just DRI-specific? I think the latter. > > The DRM is maintained by the DRI project, but this is the copy shipped > in the 4.3 release of XFree86. Is anyone else shipping DRM module sources (apart from kernel package maintainers)? > Easy, there. I didn't prod him into anything, and I pointed out the > transition issue. The question is whether transitions matter in sid or > only between stable releases, where there will be one after woody > anyway. I want people to be able to smoothly upgrade from: 1) woody 2) the previous unstable version of XFree86 3) the version of XFree86 in testing at the time this goes into unstable > I have the impression that we're perfectly calm. You on the other hand > are acting like a boy who's afraid we're going to steal his candy. If you don't understand my objection to the disruptiveness of the commit in question, then I guess you'll just have to stick with that unsophisticated analysis. > I for one am looking forward to your technical arguments to this > discussion. I have a few concerns: * package names need to be clear and communicative * package names should be chosen such that they don't have to be changed again in the near future * libGLU should not be dropped from the XFree86 packages until this action can be handled gracefully (same goes for any other library with an external source that XFree86 elects to bundle) > > Or maybe you'd rather I added "-xfree86" to the end of every shared > > library package name... > > I wouldn't, why should I, but just libgl1 doesn't work for the libGL > package unfortunately. Of course not. It's a virtual package (and, I guess, a pure virtual one, which is even better). That the most obvious choice of a package name is unavailable does not mean that care should not be exercised in choosing a different one. Your armchair proposals followed by Daniel's rapid adoption of them without consulting me, even though he said he'd leave the issue "in my court", does not strike me as a process exhibiting care. -- G. Branden Robinson | To Republicans, limited government Debian GNU/Linux | means not assisting people they branden@debian.org | would sooner see shoveled into mass http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | graves. -- Kenneth R. Kahn
Attachment:
pgp66NCTW4ehy.pgp
Description: PGP signature