On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 12:31:36AM +0100, Marcelo E. Magallon scrawled: > On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 10:26:05AM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote: > > I'm not having packages with a misleading name. 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. > > Neither have you.
Which is why the status quo shall remain. > As per policy, that number should reflect the interface the package > implements. The fact that "3" was picked up by Branden is just an > historical accident. My guess is Branden just followed what was back > then current practice, i.e., the Mesa packges (which I now maintain). > Why the Mesa packages carry a 3 is also historical baggage and most > people seem to be unaware why that 3 is there in the first place. Yes, and it's been carried through. > Hint, James *did* follow the policy when he first created the Mesa > packages. And Policy has changed, and we should probably reflect that, sure. -- Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Developer, Trinity College, University of Melbourne
msg05604/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
