On dom, 20 nov 2005, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > Why isn't the canonical zope version simply called 'zope' here? If I'd > remove zope, there will be no 'zope' package anymore for people to install.
Well, in my opinion having no 'zope' package is a good thing: zope development is focused on two branches (zope2.x and zope3) so at least two packages will have to coexists. When sarge has been released, zope2.7 was the 'default' zope version, and now it could probably removed in favour of zope2.8, but there are *a lot* of differences between them (read: the Five framework). Another point is that often there is no upgrade path between zope major releases (between 2.7 and 2.8, for example), and having separated packages could be handy in these situations. So, as zope maintainer and *user* I really would prefer to not have a 'zope' package but rather install a zopeX one, where X is the release I want to use. > So, in short, I'd really really prefer to have just one single zope > version in Debian, rather than multiple. I think this would be a bad thing for zope users and developers. > That are separate things, and I'd like to have those orphaned bugreports > reassigned to ftp.debian.org so I can deal with them. I'll reassign them to ftp.debian.org. Thanks, -- Fabio Tranchitella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> .''`. Proud Debian GNU/Linux developer, admin and user. : :' : `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~kobold/ `- _____________________________________________________________________ 1024D/7F961564, fpr 5465 6E69 E559 6466 BF3D 9F01 2BF8 EE2B 7F96 1564
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature