On Wed, 2025-02-26 at 16:47 +0100, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote: > > I personally wouldn't prefer this route. For consistency with > > bpfcc, it > > could have been with the same naming scheme. On the other hand, if > > 2 > > packages can be made to co-exist, I'd not prefer to impose such a > > limitation. > > Is there anything blocking any of the proposed solutions? > > The policy change has landed in the meantime.
I'll try put this on the list of items to attempt this weekend. I hope somebody else beats me to it. -- Ritesh Raj Sarraf | http://people.debian.org/~rrs Debian - The Universal Operating System
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
