Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Mon, 13 Jul 2009, Mike Hommey wrote: >> I am now wondering what to do. Doing the change, introducing a >> transitional package, shouldn't be disruptive. On the other hand, >> leaving the package as it is is doing no harm besides the policy >> violation that has been in place for almost a decade. >> >> What do you think? > > I agree with Junichi's last comment. Keep the package name as is and > update it only next time that the SONAME changes. > > Many package do not respect this point of the policy. It should be a > conventional name to use when you have to rename the package for a SONAME > change but it should not introduce a useless transition just for > aesthetics.
Please don't change package names unless really needed or really confusing especially with libraries, TIA. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
