On Tuesday 15 Jun 2010 at 22:04 Ray Rashif wrote: > On 15 June 2010 23:37, Bram Schoenmakers <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Yes, it would be up to Bram. He could either: > >> > >> 1) keep on maintaining current package > >> 2) disown current package and adopt the orphan > >> 3) disown current package and let someone else (you) adopt the orphan > > > > Is it that important, the naming convention? Still, I have no problem > > with taking option 2. Downside is that the current package loses its > > votes. Not that I attach much value to that, but maybe someone else > > cares. :) > > Nope, not that important or big of a deal (at least not as long as > it's in [unsupported]). > > The only benefit is that you stay in line with the naming in [extra], > so it would then be more search-friendly. And yes, the votes will be > lost, but they can grow again :) > > In any case, let us know which option you're comfortable with so we > can remove one of them.
Yes, whatever the importance or lack thereof of naming conventions, I was just pointing out the duplication. There should be only one package, at least. Pete.
