On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 07:11:47AM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote: > Agreed! The problem is that (as people have told already) the > new (the same crew as far as I know) upstream call themself realvnc... > I think I stick to the upstream name. An other solution is to > not change the name and make it provide rfbserver and rfbclient. > Maybe that is not a bad solution after all. :) It makes it less > hard for me ;)
Sounds like a plan. Technical reasons are always better than aesthetic ones. > > > 2) Do I have to ask for vncserver and vncviewer as they > > > become virtual packages? > > > > Parse error. > > Policy requirement. Do I have to have this in official virtual > package list (I maintain all the packages right now, including > rfb if I want to)? Well I will probably ask for it anyway, but that > is assuming that I get it to work at all. Then no, you don't. It was probably a mistake to ever attempt to codify the list of virtual packages in policy. Agreement amoung the people involved is sufficient. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing, `. `' | Imperial College, `- -><- | London, UK