On Mon, 2003-02-03 at 00:26, Daniel Stone wrote: > On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 12:23:07AM +0100, Marcelo E. Magallon scrawled: > > On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 10:21:22AM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote: > > > > uhm... why? That doesn't make any sense at all. > > > > > > Hysterical raisins, presumably. > > > > The raisins explain the 3 but not the 4. > > I'm not having packages with a misleading name.
I think you do, xlibmesa4-gl suggests an incompatibility to xlibmesa3-gl. > I'm keeping up status quo until I see a good reason to change current > (and expected) behaviour. So far you haven't provided one. Some reasons off the top of my head: package name should reflect API, no need to deal with a gazillion packages in package relationships, ... As the name is changing anyway, we might as well get it right. What about xlibmesagl1 (or xlibmesa-gl1, if you insist on the dash)? I'm leaning towards using that for my next dri-trunk packages. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer XFree86 and DRI project member / CS student, Free Software enthusiast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
