* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081031 22:20]:
> On Fri, Oct 31 2008, Andreas Barth wrote:
>
> > ok, I think we should try to vote on this one:
>
> I would not disagree. BTW, I seem to be having some difficulty
> getting -ctte emails, I certainly had not seen much of the discussi
On Fri, Oct 31 2008, Andreas Barth wrote:
> ok, I think we should try to vote on this one:
I would not disagree. BTW, I seem to be having some difficulty
getting -ctte emails, I certainly had not seen much of the discussion
on the BTS delivered to my mailbox. I have seen the discussion
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 20:19:35 +, Ian Jackson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#441200: libconfig name clash"):
>> Here's my latest draft of a libconfig resolution. No-one seems to be
>> suggesting that either package is entitled to the name so I have
>> removed that option.
Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#441200: libconfig name clash"):
> Here's my latest draft of a libconfig resolution. No-one seems to be
> suggesting that either package is entitled to the name so I have
> removed that option.
Have any of the rest of the committee (besides AJ and I) any comments
or opinio
Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Bug#441200: libconfig name clash"):
> On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 10:00:31PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > See #438683 where otherwise sensible people are suggesting using the
> > name libconfig1 for the new library due to the TC's inactivity
At 1196610406 time_t, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Abraham, Julien, do you have sensible alternative names for your packages
> (eg, incorporating the existing libconfig into the libabz package,
> or renaming the new libconfig package to libconfig-hyperrealm)? If so,
> what are they?
Something like libco
On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 10:00:31PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Bug#441200: libconfig name clash"):
> > I can't see any record of anyone suggesting [libconfig1] though, and
> > I'd really hope that it wouldn't be accepted at NEW
Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Bug#441200: libconfig name clash"):
> I can't see any record of anyone suggesting [libconfig1] though, and
> I'd really hope that it wouldn't be accepted at NEW.
See #438683 where otherwise sensible people are suggesting using the
name lib
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 08:15:47PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> So just to be clear, you conclude as I did that both packages should
> be required to select new names ?
Yes. I can't see any technical reason whatsoever not to do that.
> > If either maintainer *wants* to use a different package name
Anthony Towns writes ("Bug#441200: libconfig name clash"):
> [stuff]
Thanks for that research, which is useful and interesting.
So just to be clear, you conclude as I did that both packages should
be required to select new names ?
> AFAICS neither libdebug nor libconfig have any reason to be pac
10 matches
Mail list logo
