So sprach �Oden Eriksson� am 2001-11-29 um 14:33:24 +0100 : > > The proper solution IMO would be, to not use such an extremely generic > > name like "imap" for the uw-imapd package. Also the name is misleading, > > as it doesn't clearly show, what imapd this is. > > You're here also, maybe "imapd" or "imap-server" ?
Hm, "imapd"? That doesn't explain that much more, does it? :) Call me an egoist (or whatever), but I still think that my original suggestion is the best :) uw-imap clearly shows, that this package contains �uw-imap�. The current name is just way too generic. Just suppose the postfix package would have a different name. Let's say �smtp�. I don't think anyone would actually agree that this is the right name for the postfix-smtp server. The naming of the uw-imap package is no different than my example above. Generic names (like �imap�) *HAVE* to be reserved for Provides: and Requires: lines. It's IMO simply wrong to name a package like this. > Perhaps the best "political" approach is just to let them conflict. Exactly, and that's why I want a Conflicts: uw-imapd line. Well, actually I'd want a "Conflicts: imap && ! courier-imapd" line, meaning, it conflicts with every imap package which is not courier-imapd. But that's impossible with RPM :( Alexander Skwar -- How to quote: http://learn.to/quote (german) http://quote.6x.to (english) Homepage: http://www.iso-top.de | Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] iso-top.de - Die g�nstige Art an Linux Distributionen zu kommen Uptime: 6 days 11 hours 56 minutes
