On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 04:42:14PM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> > I suggest that we name the packages libfoo-java or in some
> > cases libfoo-version-java if that are necessary.
> >
> > Is that ok if I change the policy in that way?
>
> Fine in general with me, although I have a question about versions. Do we
> want libfoo-version-java or libfooversion-java? To me a package like
> libeditline-5-java seems stranger than libeditline5-java, although perhaps
> that's just me.
Well. Any of the above is ok to me. :)
> Of course then libfooversion-java starts to look like the package simply
> offers bindings to the corresponding C library, which is often not the
> case.
>
> Not deeply fussed either way.
Well we have both ways in debian now. Should we allow both but prefer
one?
Regards,
// Ola
> Ben.
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--
--------------------- Ola Lundqvist ---------------------------
/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Björnkärrsgatan 5 A.11 \
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] 584 36 LINKÖPING |
| +46 (0)13-17 69 83 +46 (0)70-332 1551 |
| http://www.opal.dhs.org UIN/icq: 4912500 |
\ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 /
---------------------------------------------------------------
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
