* Samuel Bronson <naes...@gmail.com>, 2012-01-21, 13:44:
* Package name : gcc-4.5-doc-non-dfsg
Does "non-dfsg" really need to be a part of source package name? What
if FSF decides to free the documentation one day?
Then this source package will disappear, and its binary will be built
from pristine gcc sources.
Right, that was a silly argument. Thanks for pointing that out.
As for the name, a quick look at the changelog will show that I
obtained it by replacing "4.4" with "4.5" in the name of the source
package that mine is based on.
Still, I see no reason to include "dfsg" or "non-dfsg" in any package
name (other than maybe "I want to repeat mistakes of my predecessors"
:P).
--
Jakub Wilk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120122131638.ga3...@jwilk.net
