Am Dienstag, 15. März 2011, 09:26:09 schrieb Andreas Tille: > 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.
There is hard reason and I am fine with leaving it as is. The reasoning was that the project freadiams is logically split into data and client anyway by providing a data package. So the suggestion was to rename the freediams package to freediams-client. From what I hear some sort of server might appear anyway through the means of a webservice. But for now I am fine with leaving this as is. Sebastian > > 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
