Hi Sebastian,
I admit I do not understand your suggestion at all. Could you please
be more verbose in how far changing a name is helpful? The current split
of the package has only one single purpose: Splitting the architecture
dependant and (large) architecture indepandatn parts to not waste mirror
space of Debian mirrors (as if it would be the case if everything would
be in one package). This is a very common way in Debian. I do not see
why we should complicate things with an extra metapackage.
Kind regards
Andreas.
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 04:33:32PM +0100, Sebastian Hilbert wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Please consider the following change.
>
> I would like to see a metapackage freediams which would install freediams-
> client and freediams-data.
>
> The current freediams package would be renamed to freediams-client and the
> newly created freediams package is a metapackage.
>
> Why ? Well freediams is the name of the project, hence a metapackage. Why
> freediams-client ? Given there is no seperate package freediams-server this
> could lead to some debate. Alternatively freediams-client could also be
> called
> freediams-gui.
>
> I would like to hear your opinion on this.
>
> Sebastian Hilbert
> GNUmed team
--
http://fam-tille.de
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
