Hello, On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 04:04:25AM -0500, Asheesh Laroia wrote: > Thanks Fabian for the bug report. I intend to apply this patch unless > either of the two CC:d maintainers of nano object. > > Also, I'm curious - what would you maintainers of nano think if I renamed > the alpine-pico binary package to just "pico"? That's really what the > package is called, and the fact that it's part of the alpine source > package is irrelevant to the user.
I think diverting is probably not the correct solution to this problem. We should use alternatives for the pico binary, with alpine providing a higher priority than nano's. Regarding the binary name, I think it shouldn't be renamed. I don't know what you mean with "the fact that it's part of the alpine source package is irrelevant". There is a source package in Debian which builds a "pine" package (not by default, due to licensing reasons). If you rename alpine-pico to pico, there'll be two different "pico" binaries with different version numbers and source, even if the "real" one isn't in the binary archive. Jordi -- Jordi Mallach Pérez -- Debian developer http://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sindominio.net/ GnuPG public key information available at http://oskuro.net/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
