On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 10:21:33AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 11:17:44AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >I hate to do this at this late point (and I *really* hate it when people
> >do it to me) but I didn't notice the slightly nonstandard practice of
> >naming the binary 'aspell-bin'. I'd like to change that. Otherwise
> >we have a base package which only contains source, which is also
> >unusual. I'd prefer to "mv aspell-{bin-,}0.50.3-1.tar.bz2" and
> >put it at the top level of the aspell directory and move everything else
> >underneath it.
> >
> >Gareth, do you have a problem with that?
>
> I just re-noticed that tetex also has a -bin package.
>
> What do people think about this? I would like to be consistent in package
> naming and it seems like most packages put their binaries in a package sans
> -bin. There is an empty tetex package but I don't understand the need
> to complicate things this way.
>
> XFree86 also does this and I am, again, not sure why it's needed.
I don't think it's needed. It should be removed in favor of having the
default binary release in the base package.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Red Hat, Inc.
