-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Cristian Greco wrote:
>
> I agree that we should keep packages separate (although I never said the
> contrary), but my opinion about the name of libtorrent10 package (name
> of the package, _not_ the library) is still the same: what is the
> rationale for a lib${PROTOCOL_NAME} _package_ name?
> Are you assuming that only that library implementing the protocol will
> be part of the distribution? Or should we consider it as a kind of
> "favourite" library just because it was packaged before others?
It's more something like "it was uploaded first with that name and
uploading it with the new name would put it in NEW queue what would be
not very useful for just a name change" and after all this name change
wouldn't have any improvement in the use of this libraries, after all a
maintainer will choose which one is the library needed, not a random
user. I don't see the conflict in letting the name as is other that "but
there's another library called libtorrent"...
Regards.
- --
Jose Luis Rivas. San Cristóbal, Venezuela. PGP: 0xCACAB118
http://ghostbar.ath.cx/{about,acerca} - http://debian.org.ve
`ghostbar' @ irc.debian.org/#debian-ve,#debian-devel-es
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFINjxtOKCtW8rKsRgRArkoAJ4sy4o9eiGbT+jEMspg/Bc1bG4wUwCgvmDq
RNjgC5PddqWdv9OKx4D+wjU=
=GH1a
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
