On 2/8/2005 16:30:45, Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.- ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
I'm still awaiting any solid arguments against x11-proto, and they had
best be expedited (read below for why).
Well, I kind of mentioned it on irc, but I'll throw it out here too.
I think the name proto is pretty vague and would prefer
to see headers (ala sys-kernel/linux-headers, etc.) but since upstream
uses that name, I guess I can live with it.
IMHO living with the upstream name is worth more than renaming to 'x11-headers'.
It isn't an extraction/repackaging of something else (c.f.
sys-kernel/linux-headers),
which would be implied by a name different from upstream. x11-proto does
include
the docs for the apis as well, so that's a small point against renaming to
x11-headers.
In the long term, people programming to the x11 protocol will be conditioned to
program against the upstream 'proto' module, so sticking with that name
shouldn't
really cause any confusion.
Kev.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
