On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 09:20:53PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> As t1lib-dev (1.3.1) and libt1-dev (5.0.0) are not API compatible I'd
> consider that a pseudo-package useless or even unwelcome.
Good point.
--
G. Branden Robinson|The errors of great men are
Debian GNU/Linux
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 02:23:53PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 08:29:29PM +0100, Artur R. Czechowski wrote:
> [...]
>> > 1. I left package with 1.3.1 version with names: t1lib1, t1lib-dev,
>> >t1lib-doc, t1lib1-bin. Ver
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 02:23:53PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I suggest the following:
[cut]
Looks good. Ftpmasters probably would kill me, because t1lib5 is uploaded
to experimental, but it looks really better than my schedule. If there will
be no objection from ftpmaster I will follow your
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 02:23:53PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 08:29:29PM +0100, Artur R. Czechowski wrote:
[...]
> > 1. I left package with 1.3.1 version with names: t1lib1, t1lib-dev,
> >t1lib-doc, t1lib1-bin. Version 5.0.0 is uploaded with names: libt1-5,
> >
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[t1lib migration]
> I suggest the following:
> 1. Rename existing t1lib (1.3.1) source package to t1lib-old or
> something like that. Alter it to provide *only* the t1lib1 and
> t1lib-dev binary packages. Update t1lib-dev's package description to
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 08:29:29PM +0100, Artur R. Czechowski wrote:
> Let me make myself clear.
>
> There is t1lib 1.3.1 package in Debian. This is old and unsupported. My goal
> is to remove it from Debian.
>
> There is t1lib 5.0.0. I would like to have it as an only t1lib in
> distribution.
>
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 12:19:03AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Agreed, so why rename it at all? (ie why t1lib -> libt1 if the dummy
> package is always going to be required anyway).
Not always; just for one Debian release. A dummy package just *smooths*
upgrades if you do them right; it doesn'
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 12:04:18AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Recall that Apt figures out dependency chains for most people. The only
> people you're going to offend with the ugliness are people who already
> think like Debian developers. And in my experience, one can't cross the
> street w
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 09:20:36PM +0100, Artur R. Czechowski wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 12:22:14PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 11:09:27PM +0100, Artur R. Czechowski wrote:
> > > I changed the naming scheme. All binary packages contain version in its
> > > name, i
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 12:04:18AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 10:57:32PM +0100, Artur R. Czechowski wrote:
> > These arguments are good, but...
> >
> > All packages which use this library depend on t1lib1. Of course, I can
> > provide dummy t1lib1 package which depend
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 10:57:32PM +0100, Artur R. Czechowski wrote:
> These arguments are good, but...
>
> All packages which use this library depend on t1lib1. Of course, I can
> provide dummy t1lib1 package which depends on libt1-1 but I do not like
> this idea.
I strongly urge you to overcome
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 12:22:14PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 11:09:27PM +0100, Artur R. Czechowski wrote:
> > I changed the naming scheme. All binary packages contain version in its
> > name, i.e.: t1lib-dev is now named t1lib1-dev. Of course old packages are
> Hmm. Why
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 09:48:29PM +0100, Artur R. Czechowski wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 02:35:55PM -0500, Aaron M. Ucko wrote:
> > If you're renaming them anyway, why not follow Policy 8.1 and
> > s/t1lib/libt1-/ (yielding libt1-1, etc.)?
> Yes, I thought about it. But there is no strict ru
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 11:09:27PM +0100, Artur R. Czechowski wrote:
> I would like to inform you, that some important changes happened to
> t1lib 1.3.1-4[1] package.
>
> I changed the naming scheme. All binary packages contain version in its
> name, i.e.: t1lib-dev is now named t1lib1-dev. Of cou
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 03:03:09PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > OTOH, if you provide me good arguments why I should change name of t1lib,
> > and good explanation why a new package, let's say rsplib, does not conform
> > to this rule, I will not insist anymore.
> 1) Consistency is good, and m
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 09:48:29PM +0100, Artur R. Czechowski wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 02:35:55PM -0500, Aaron M. Ucko wrote:
> > If you're renaming them anyway, why not follow Policy 8.1 and
> > s/t1lib/libt1-/ (yielding libt1-1, etc.)?
> Yes, I thought about it. But there is no strict rul
"Artur R. Czechowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And last but not least: upstream name is t1lib. I do not like to change it
> until it is really needed.
Fair enough; that's probably the best argument. (I similarly resisted
renaming alsa-xmms to xmms-alsa because I felt it would be better to
k
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 02:35:55PM -0500, Aaron M. Ucko wrote:
> If you're renaming them anyway, why not follow Policy 8.1 and
> s/t1lib/libt1-/ (yielding libt1-1, etc.)?
Yes, I thought about it. But there is no strict rule in Policy, just
recommendation. There are many other packages which do not
"Artur R. Czechowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I changed the naming scheme. All binary packages contain version in its
> name, i.e.: t1lib-dev is now named t1lib1-dev. Of course old packages are
If you're renaming them anyway, why not follow Policy 8.1 and
s/t1lib/libt1-/ (yielding libt1-1,
19 matches
Mail list logo
