On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 20:29:23 +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > [Guillem Jover] > > Couldn't we define a new virtual facility for xfs? There's been > > other font servers in the past in Debian, and having to modify all > > DM packages to add new font servers or keep track of new DM to add > > to the font server packages do not seem optimal. > > Sure. Have you seen > <URL:http://wiki.debian.org/LSBInitScripts/DebianVirtualFacilities>? > It describes how package maintainers could implement their own virtual > facilities.
Yes I did, but was not sure if it needed approval from someone before starting to use new ones. Maybe that could be clarified in the page? > > Could such a new virtual facility use the same name as xfs, or do > > they share the namespace? > > Not sure, I must admit. $xfs or $x-font-server would probably work, > but I would suggest the package maintainers of the x font servers come > up with a name you could agree on. :) I'm not sure my question was clear. What I meant was that if the namespace for the normal facilities and the virtual facilities is the same (module the $) or if they are separete, allowing to use stuff like xfs and $xfs at the same time. I'll talk with the XSF about the name, anyway, but it would be good to know what's allowed. :) thanks, guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
