On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 12:35:02 +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > [Guillem Jover] > > Yes I did, but was not sure if it needed approval from someone > > before starting to use new ones. Maybe that could be clarified in > > the page? > > It is not yet determined, so not sure what to write. I will add a > comment about asking the sysvinit maintainers, to allow us to provide > feedback at least. I hope few virtual facilites are needed, and that > we can reuse a virtual package name in most cases. :)
Ok, thank for the edit. > > I'm not sure my question was clear. What I meant was that if the > > namespace for the normal facilities and the virtual facilities is > > the same (module the $) or if they are separete, allowing to use > > stuff like xfs and $xfs at the same time. > > Ah, right. The two namespaces are separate (or actually, the > namespace is the same and $ is significant). So $xfs and xfs are two > different names. Ah ok! > > I'll talk with the XSF about the name, anyway, but it would be good > > to know what's allowed. :) > > Thanks. And it seems xfs is orphan so no point in asking them. If it's ok with you I'll be using $x-font-server (which seems more clear) and we'll be uploading a new revision for xfs as well with that change, and few other pending bugs. regards, guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
