I agree -supported is a bad term to use, it indeed is far too ambiguous; the meaning of 'supported' varies wildly depending on who you ask. I think even between us three discussing this the meaning probably is different ;-)
I don't have particularly strong feelings on the specific naming of each package, other than not using the plain name 'fence-agents'. I wonder if this topic is worth an email to ubuntu-devel-discuss to come up with some standardized naming for packages that are split into 'good' and 'bad' (and 'ugly') binary debs? Or maybe even debian-devel- discuss...possibly some of the old-school debian/ubuntu people might have already discussed this topic. The -good, -bad, -ugly naming may be most appropriate but we probably shouldn't have people pick naming arbitrarily each time a package is split into multiple debs like this. For example another naming approach might be -stable and -unstable. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1927004 Title: [MIR] fence-agents To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/fence-agents/+bug/1927004/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
