On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 05:28:14PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: > 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.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=250202 (The discussion is long, but has recent activity.) -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
