>>>>> Juan Cespedes writes: > The `glibc-sparc' *source* package is what we are using now as > the sources for libc6 in Sparc; however, there's nothing > sparc-specific on it, it's just a newer version of the `glibc' used in > other architectures. We need another source package name so that the > two versions can coexist.
> It's used mainly on Sparc, but it may be used in other archs > sooner or later. The `powerpc' people, for example, is willing to use > it, and we may try to use it for i386 after Debian 2.0 is released. > However, I would like to change its name: `glibc-sparc' seems > very sparc-specific, and I would like to hear your suggestions on this > issue. How about `glibc-pre2.1'? (it's based on pre-alpha versions > of glibc-2.1). > (BTW: I would like to use `glibc-alpha', but that could > confuse the AXP people :)) > Other alternatives would be `glibc-beta', `glibc-exp', > `glibc-devel'... > Comments? Are you adding the actual date of the snapshot? In that case you might consider calling it just e.g. glibc-snapshot-980202. >From the names you suggested I only like glibc-pre2.1: glibc-alpha is confusing in a double sense (we don't call them alpha versions, they're snapshots), glibc-beta is even worse (glibc-2.0.92 could be called an alpha/beta but not the snapshots), glibc-exp (experimental - I don't like it but it's better than alpha/beta) and finally glibc-devel which might imply that you need it _for_ development. Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] for pgp-key finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
