Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 23 May 2006, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I'd really rather stick with the upstream name, > Why not ask upstream WHY they are misnaming the library? > libxml-security-c++ is a perfectly ok and valid name... I'll ask, but again, this is a library package, so the binary package name is going to match the name of the library on disk. So really we're only arguing about the name of the source package. My guess is that upstream isn't going to be particularly thrilled with the idea of changing the SONAME and name of the library on disk for aesthetic reasons, given the backward compatibility issues. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
