On Sun, Oct 10, 2004 at 12:53:14AM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote: > > - rename package to "hibernate-script" to keep it consistent with > > upstream naming > > I'm not too sure about this. For one, it could (potentially) confuse > people who are already using my unofficial packages. Also, the > -script part of the name seems to not fit in very well with the name > of other Debian packages. > > Bernard, since you wrote (and named) the script, do you have an > opinion on this either way?
I'd probably prefer to leave the Debian package as just hibernate, though I won't be offended either way. Paraphrasing an email I sent when deciding the naming a while back: "So we need to decide on a name for this thing for packaging purposes - Kevin has proposed just 'hibernate', though I fear that people will then expect this to do all the work :) OTOH, it means a Debian package called hibernate will conform with Debian policy having /etc/hibernate/hibernate.conf, and this consistency with upstream is a good thing, IMHO. (Policy Manual 10.7.2 suggests "creating a subdirectory of /etc named after your package"). An alternative name is hibernate-script - which while more descriptive, means we'd be going against Debian policy if we wanted /etc/hibernate ... D'oh :( I think I'd like to call it hibernate-script still (the tarball), and the rpm and deb packages can be called hibernate. (This is what Kevin's rpm .spec does)." > Also, if it's going into the Debian > archive soon, do you want to commit the mawk fixes and release 0.99? > (There are a few bug fixes sitting in svn at the moment.) The mawk bug doesn't have a fix yet except perhaps using perl intead. I might just resort to that. I'll release 0.99 sometime tomorrow then. Bernard. -- Bernard Blackham <bernard at blackham dot com dot au> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]