FYI, Maciej, you are missing a piece of information from your decision-making process. Happily, as the package release manager since "the dawn of time", I can provide the missing piece for you :-)
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski < [email protected]> wrote: > > Yes, the specific case. The reasoning goes like this: There's the > _gtk2 package. It essentially contains shared libraries[1], plus a > header file and a few scripts. The other two are the common package, > and a devel one. I can't really imagine there being _gtk1 or _qt > packages; the _gtk2 one is basically the runtime package and should be > named _rt. Well, funny you should say that. because as I remember, there USED TO BE a gtk1 based version of it. that is why the current one is named _gtk2. There was a time when both versions were available as CSW packages. I believe it was decided that the gtk1 version was no longer worth maintaining, so it was dropped. So, just the gtk2 back-end was left around. So, right now, there is a wxwidgets "front end", and a wxwidgets "back end" that is gtk2. You are looking to rename the back end to "_rt". However, that seems to make the assumption, that gtk2 is the "one, only, true 'run-time'" for wxwidgets. This assumption is completely false. wxwidgets can also be Motif based, for example. and to get really down and dirty, there is even a pure X11 backend, from what I understand. ( http://www.wxwidgets.org/docs/faqx11.htm ) So, in summary: the current wxwidgets packages naming, should be left as-is.
_______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
