On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 20:19:35 +0000, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#441200: libconfig name clash"):
>> Here's my latest draft of a libconfig resolution. No-one seems to be
>> suggesting that either package is entitled to the name so I have
>> removed that option.
> Have any of the rest of the committee (besides AJ and I) any comments
> or opinions about this ?
> I appreciate that it's rather a long resolution which may need a bit
> of picking apart or thought but even a short indication of whether you
> think I'm going in the right general direction would be helpful.
> If the rest of the committee thinks I'm barking up the wrong kind of
> trees then there's little point AJ and I discussing the fine details.
I mostly concur; I think that the name libconfig or libdebug is
far too generic to be used by either candidate (I would reconsider that
only for a package that has far larger installed base, or has become a
standard in other Linux/UNIX OS's already). I'm OK with letting people
decide on new names for their packages, and letting NEW processing sort
it out (though I wonder how libconfig and libdebug got in in the first
place).
manoj
--
Information Processing: What you call data processing when people are so
disgusted with it they won't let it be discussed in their presence.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
pgpd9zjvV6r3X.pgp
Description: PGP signature
