On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 03:41:21PM -0700, Chuan-kai Lin wrote: > On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 05:03:41PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > Can be done, but I didn't offer that option because I don't really > > like it. :-) At that point, I don't really see any reason to change > > the package name from what it was in sarge. (There never was a good > > reason, but it was done anyway because people didn't realize it was a > > mistake, and the name change was allowed to stand because it didn't > > seem to cause any problems.)
> Not that it matters, but I am curious: so it would make you much happier > if I had suggested making libfam0 a transitional dummy package to > libfam0c102 instead of the other way around? Nah, I'd prefer not to have to carry around too many dummy packages for etch in general... -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
