On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 18:38, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 09:41:04PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 20:17, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 02:00:54PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > > > > Mmm, I'm liking libgl1-xfree86. My original name for the DRM sources > > > > > was > > > > > xfree86-drm-src, but that later got renamed. > > > > > > > > Not too bad, methinks. > > > > > > I don't like it. Are these things really XFree86 X xserver specific, or > > > just DRI-specific? I think the latter. > > > > The DRM is maintained by the DRI project, but this is the copy shipped > > in the 4.3 release of XFree86. > > Is anyone else shipping DRM module sources (apart from kernel package > maintainers)?
I am, from several branches of the DRI tree. > > [...] I pointed out the transition issue. The question is whether > > transitions matter in sid or only between stable releases, where > > there will be one after woody anyway. > > I want people to be able to smoothly upgrade from: > 1) woody > 2) the previous unstable version of XFree86 > 3) the version of XFree86 in testing at the time this goes into unstable Sounds reasonable, I'll keep that in mind. > I have a few concerns: > * package names need to be clear and communicative > * package names should be chosen such that they don't have to be changed > again in the near future Guess why I brought up all the naming mumbo jumbo? :) > * libGLU should not be dropped from the XFree86 packages until this > action can be handled gracefully I never suggested otherwise. > > > Or maybe you'd rather I added "-xfree86" to the end of every shared > > > library package name... > > > > I wouldn't, why should I, but just libgl1 doesn't work for the libGL > > package unfortunately. > > Of course not. It's a virtual package (and, I guess, a pure virtual > one, which is even better). My point exactly. > That the most obvious choice of a package name is unavailable does not > mean that care should not be exercised in choosing a different one. > Your armchair proposals followed by Daniel's rapid adoption of them > without consulting me, even though he said he'd leave the issue "in my > court", does not strike me as a process exhibiting care. Err, I'm a bit lost here, I don't understand what this is supposed to be all about. I provided a couple of proposals for discussion, that's all. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer \ Debian (powerpc), XFree86 and DRI developer Software libre enthusiast \ http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer