-conf is a good naming, if it contains only config files. but shlibs packages may share these files:
- config files - locale files - modules - program or scripts, needed by shlibs package, especially by *Script field in .info file. So -common or -base is appropreate, I think. On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 11:03:09 -0700 "Justin Hallett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OH we've been using -conf. We need a standard I think. I like -common > and -base but those are debians anyhow that is just babling we need a > standard. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >-common package is a common files for -shlibs packages. > > > >fooN-shlibs packages should be installable at the same time, but if > >they contains a same file, /etc/foo.conf for example, they can't > >coexists. In this case, foo-common package contains /etc/foo.conf > >and all the fooN-shlibs depends on it. This is why we needs -common > >package. -- Masanori Sekino mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hp.vector.co.jp/authors/VA008857/ _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
