Hi, once again with updated subject :-)
Anfang der weitergeleiteten E-Mail: > Am 13.02.2011 um 12:41 schrieb Maciej Bliziński: >> 2011/2/13 Ben Walton <[email protected]>: >>> This is good. It doesn't force what the standard catalog name is, it >>> simply ensures that they match and tosses an error otherwise. This >>> makes a good deal of sense to me. Presumably there are other parts of >>> the code that look at things like 'devel' vs 'dev' etc? >> >> The devel vs dev issue has been recently questioned[1] and not >> resolved. I planned to implement that check when the issue is >> resolved. The conversation started on pkgsubmissions, when I sent >> libffi packages for release, working towards resolution of the ctypes >> module problem in Python. The conversation has stalled. We've >> established that from the people who care about this issue, 4 are for >> -dev and 1 is for -devel. However, Phil hasn't acknowledged that fact >> and still hasn't released the libffi packages. I can't say I'm happy >> with issues being stalled like this. >> >> Maciej >> >> [1] >> http://lists.opencsw.org/pipermail/pkgsubmissions/2011-February/002185.html >> [2] >> http://lists.opencsw.org/pipermail/pkgsubmissions/2011-February/002190.html > > Is there any new input? If no I suggest getting to a vote. > (1) CSW*-dev *_dev > (2) CSW*-devel *_devel > While the current OpenCSW standard is (2) the solution (2) is short leaving > more space for package names, is consistent with other packaging projects > and without loss of meaning. Best regards -- Dago _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
