On 7/01/2010, at 7:42 AM, Darren J Moffat wrote:
gnome2
Can't this be "gnome instead" ? Do we really need it to be gnome2 ?
I agree with Darren here. Given the way GNOME seems to be going, it's
not clear there will be as defined a separation between GNOME 2.x and
GNOME 3.x (if it ever exists) as there was with GNOME 1.x and GNOME
2.x. The project got rid of all versioning within the binary
executable names, though did make the libraries parallel installable.
Basically why doesn't the pkg(5) versioning deal with the "2" part.
I would have assumed this too.
FWIW, Ubuntu doesn't seem to include the version in the package name
for applications or utilities, but does for libraries. It might be
something to consider for consistency/familiarity?
Glynn
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
