On Wed, 02 Jan 2008, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 03:46:02PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > > Unless there's a compelling reason to the contrary, a source > > package should in general build at least one binary package of the > > same name. This is definetly the case when the source package only > > builds one binary package. > > Not that this is applicable to perl packages, but one very common > reason for this to not be the case is that the package is a > library... In that case, it's beneficial to have continuity of the > source package name whereas the binary package name will change > periodically.
Right; that's exactly the major compelling reason that I was thinking about when I wrote the above. Don Armstrong -- There is no such thing as "social gambling." Either you are there to cut the other bloke's heart out and eat it--or you're a sucker. If you don't like this choice--don't gamble. -- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p250 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]