Someone (David?) said:
> It seems to me that
> changing the very few packages which don't already conform to such
> a naming scheme would be much less disruptive than renaming every
> package.
From: Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Also, a cheap workaround for any existing dependency problems would be
> a Provides: entry with the old package name.
I we can either rename existing packages, or use the double-dash. I don't
care which. We must, however, make a decision reasonably soon. One of the
biggest problems of Debian, and the one that still may cause it to fail,
is it's design-by-committee nature. If we are to argue this issue for three
weeks, we'd might as well quit now.
Bruce
--
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Pixar Animation Studios
