On Wed, Dec 22, 2010, Wookey wrote: > I see no reason why this shouldn't work well. Personally I am leaning > towards reduced functionality builds with the same names, but am happy > to be persuaded the other way if we can see good reasons.
I'm leaning the other way; I find it more obvious to have a different package name. It's easier to check for presence of a package than a package's header. Would be feasible either way I guess Anyway, we should discuss this when faced with a real example of the issue I think in the "Stages" terminology, a Bootstrap: yes flag would be too restrictive; I'd rather have a Stage: 1 or Build-Stage: 1 flag instead. -- Loïc Minier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-arm-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101222153255.gb18...@bee.dooz.org
