On Wed, 2005-02-09 at 03:11 -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > The xprt package will be gone from XFree86 as of the next package release. > > Please create a dummy package called "xprt", which depends on > "xprt-xprintorg".
Upon further thought, I've decided my whim is to repackage Xprint this way: Recombine data files with binaries (xprt-xprintorg + xprt-common) and call the new binary package xprint. To my mind, this makes more sense as a package name, and makes the init file (/etc/init.d/xprint) consistent with the package name, which I understand to be normal Debian practice. For comparison, upstream rpms are identified as "xprint" (e.g. xprint-2004-07-07-release_009_001-0.9.001.i386.rpm) But SuSE seems to use Xprt (e.g. xorg-x11-Xprt-6.8.2rc2-0.1.i586.rpm). Then both xprt and xprt-xprintorg will become dummy packages depending on xprint. I will remove xprt-xprintorg once dependencies (x-window-system and the mozillas) have been updated to xprint, hopefully before sarge. xprt-common will disappear immediately. I might as well do the same with the source package while I'm at it (change xprint-xprintorg to xprint). It doesn't look like the xprint.org domain will be created anytime soon, especially now that this Xprint version is officially recognised as the X.org version. Can anyone see any clear problems with naming the binary package "xprint" rather than "xprt" ? Drew -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
