On 2/8/2005 16:30:45, Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.- ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > > I'm still awaiting any solid arguments against x11-proto, and they had > > best be expedited (read below for why). > > Well, I kind of mentioned it on irc, but I'll throw it out here too. > I think the name "proto" is pretty vague and would prefer > to see headers (ala sys-kernel/linux-headers, etc.) but since upstream > uses that name, I guess I can live with it.
IMHO living with the upstream name is worth more than renaming to 'x11-headers'. It isn't an extraction/repackaging of something else (c.f. sys-kernel/linux-headers), which would be implied by a name different from upstream. x11-proto does include the docs for the apis as well, so that's a small point against renaming to x11-headers. In the long term, people programming to the x11 protocol will be conditioned to program against the upstream 'proto' module, so sticking with that name shouldn't really cause any confusion. Kev. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
