Hi.
At the moment our policy states that if there is a need for Motif version
of the package, there shiold be 2 binary packages produced called
*-dmotif and *-smotif. Where -dmotif is a dynamically linked version and
-smotif - statically. While it doesn't matter for -smotif, -dmotif naming
convention actually refered to the linkage with libc5-based Motif 2.0,
ignoring the existence of Motif 1.2 (which was OK, it is not popular at
all in Linux community).
Situation got changed now when several vendors already shipping
libc6-based Motif 2.1 and 2.0.
While again, it doesn't matter for -smotif version (I guess maintainer
should link with libc6 Motif whenever possible), we should distinguish
between TWO versions of -dmotif package - for libc5 and libc6 based
Motif.
The problem is that we need to extend naming convention.
The natural proposition would be to ignore the existence of libc6-based
Motif 2.0 (most vendors will ship 2.1 version anyway) and name the
packages -dmotif20 and -dmotif21 for libc5 and libc6 version respectively.
I myself don't like that very much: Motif 2.1 is the last OSF release and
is going to be present on the market for quite a long time. I wouldn't
like to see the ugly name -dmotif21 even when -dmotif20 is gone.
So, my proposition is to change the naming policy for
libc5-based Motif packages to -dmotif20 and retain -dmotif for libc6-based
Motif 2.1 linked ones. This would mean that all current *-dmotif packages
should be reuploaded with new name (-dmotif20 instead of -dmotif).
Thanks.
Alex Y.
--
_
_( )_
( (o___ +-------------------------------------------+
| _ 7 | Alexander Yukhimets |
\ (") | http://pages.nyu.edu/~aqy6633/ |
/ \ \ +-------------------------------------------+
