Christian Meder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 08:32:29PM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> > I suggest we all follow naming conventions, i.e., 'metapkg-*', so that > > it's easy to pick these babies out. > When this idea was tossed around for the first time (around Sep 1998) we > settled for profile-* packages. > > I still think it's the better solution as it's consistent with the > terms used during installation (minimizes the chance to confuse a first > time user). I'm amenable to using 'profile-*' naming. Martin? > Otherwise I propose this FAQ entry: > > Q.: Why are the profiles named metapkg in the packaging system after > initial installation ? > A.: Uh, oh, it's just that we wanted to give Debian a more philosophical > touch. Ok, so sue me, I'm was a philosophy major. ;) Uber-packages ? (just kidding) -- .....Adam Di [EMAIL PROTECTED]<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
