On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 12:53:08AM +0100, Michel D?nzer scrawled: > 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.
xlibmesa3-gl suggests that it's Mesa version 3. Which it isn't. > > 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, ... xlibmesa12/xlibmesa13, then? > 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. I think we should get consensus between you, myself, and Branden before either of us leap. -- Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Developer, Trinity College, University of Melbourne
pgpzwrLIKDnZ4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
