On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 11:37:08PM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote: > Am Montag, den 28.07.2008, 15:14 -0500 schrieb Dirk Eddelbuettel: > > I used to be more cavalier and add a given CRAN package foo as just (source > > package) foo into Debian, with a binary r-cran-foo. Lately, I have started > > to use r-cran-foo for the source as well. May be a solution for my end of > > sm.
I couldn't agree more - the r-cran-* situation has long been confusing. > > That said, Joachim may also want to name both screen-message even > > though the binary command is just sm ... > > I really would like to have the binary called sm – after all, for a user > tool, the connection between binary and package name is more important > than for libraries that are pulled by dependencies. > > I know that the current sm vs. sm situation is, well, tricky. I quickly > talked to dons at DebConf7 and IIRC he said something like: „You can > leave it that way, debbugs should theoretically handle this and anything > else is an bug.“ Theoretically. But in practice it's very hard to distinguish source and binary names reliably, chiefly because people tend to supply them in ambiguous contexts. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
