Sorry I didn't reply to this sooner. On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 02:02:09AM +1100, Drew Parsons wrote: > On Wed, 2005-02-09 at 03:11 -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > > The xprt package will be gone from XFree86 as of the next package release. > > > > Please create a dummy package called "xprt", which depends on > > "xprt-xprintorg". > > Upon further thought, I've decided my whim is to repackage Xprint this > way: > > Recombine data files with binaries (xprt-xprintorg + xprt-common) and > call the new binary package xprint. > > To my mind, this makes more sense as a package name, and makes the init > file (/etc/init.d/xprint) consistent with the package name, which I > understand to be normal Debian practice. For comparison, upstream rpms > are identified as "xprint" (e.g. > xprint-2004-07-07-release_009_001-0.9.001.i386.rpm) But SuSE seems to > use Xprt (e.g. xorg-x11-Xprt-6.8.2rc2-0.1.i586.rpm). > > Then both xprt and xprt-xprintorg will become dummy packages depending > on xprint. I will remove xprt-xprintorg once dependencies > (x-window-system and the mozillas) have been updated to xprint, > hopefully before sarge. xprt-common will disappear immediately. > > I might as well do the same with the source package while I'm at it > (change xprint-xprintorg to xprint). It doesn't look like the > xprint.org domain will be created anytime soon, especially now that this > Xprint version is officially recognised as the X.org version. > > Can anyone see any clear problems with naming the binary package > "xprint" rather than "xprt" ?
The above sounds completely reasonable to me. The x-window-system metapackage can switch from the name "xprt" to "xprint" after sarge releases. -- G. Branden Robinson | The Bible is probably the most Debian GNU/Linux | genocidal book ever written. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Noam Chomsky http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
