On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 08:14:35PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 11:10:41AM +0100, Martin Quinson wrote: > > I find personnaly patch/unpatch more easy to understand, but YMMV... > > I think (hope) that no one will be able to find a reason why the two > target should *not* be called "patch" / "unpatch". They are IMO the only > 2 that people will be able to guess out of the blue. > > So please go for patch/unpatch.
Fine by me. Though if you dug a bit deeper I suspect you would find rather a lot of packages that supply patch/unpatch targets under various names. Perhaps a policy is in order? That way lintian and friends would alert packagers to the problem. -- Horms -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]