On Mit, 2003-02-05 at 21:24, Branden Robinson wrote: > Given that the soversion isn't terribly meaningful in the case of Mesa, > in my opinion the library package name should communicate the major > version number of Mesa itself.
I still don't see how that is meaningful. > However, Policy doesn't mandate that sort of thing, and if Marcelo wants > to do things differently than I do, there's no harm in that. All the > important issues, like what the virtual package names mean, we already > agreed upon, and that's what counts to people trying to get work done. You seem to be implying I'm not one of those. Well, I am trying to get work done, with packages that have a relationship to those in question, and I think it's unnecessarily hard, for no good reason. The best one so far seems to be 'we've made the mistake of picking the Mesa version once, let's keep doing it indefinitely'. -- 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]
