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 / ---------------------------------------------------------------
