On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 10:13:58AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > This however does not solve the name clash with Aleph. So I think there > are three possibilities (repeating here what Frank already said > somewhat):
> 1) Leave things alone, and ignore the problem. This, it seems to me, > requires some kind of go-ahead from the release team. I don't see any reason that this would be appropriate here; I can't see why aleph should be a special exception to a release-critical requirement that has been clearly stated in policy for years. > 2) Drop aleph. This would be warranted if it were of no use any longer, > or if it were buggy. But the *only* bug against Aleph is the name clash > with TeX, so there is no independent reason to prefer this solution. > The question remains, however, whether the current version has any use, > and I simply don't know the answer to that. If it does, then, as I > said, I'm happy to maintain it. > 3) Retain aleph, and change the name of the binary in one package or the > other. If we don't do (2), and the release team is not happy with (1), > then this is obviously the right course. I don't care at all which > program's name is changed or what it's changed to. What are the pros > and cons? Sounds like this is the way to go. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
