Hi, On Sun, Nov 05, 2006, Bastian Venthur wrote: > Which policy? A few months ago I asked on several lists (including > -gnome) whether I could rename the package.
Well, doh, as far as I can see you got reply from Josselin that if you have a file in the Gtk2 engine dir, you should name the package gtk2-engines-foo... > No real arguments against > the renaming where given and it turned out that there is not really a > policy about the naming scheme. No "real" arguments? Like following a naming scheme to distinguish Gtk1 engines from Gtk2 engines? You do know that Josselin and me were almost the sole two GNOME maintainers? Do you really want me to write a mini-policy for that? I can add it to the Gtk package, but I must be sure that I spend my time for something useful and that you're going to fix the package name. > In fact I feared that more people would > protest against my plan to rename the package, but after all there was > only one person arguing against the renaming. With me that makes it two, and back in july I did not see anything to add to what Joss said, he was correct. > My arguments were (in short): > - name confusing and misleading What is confusing and misleading in gtk2-engines-qt? It's Gtk2 engine for Qt... > - name does not fit in the gtk-engines-foo naming scheme (because it is > in fact a KDE app not a Gnome one) The gtk-engines-foo naming scheme is for Gtk1 engines... > > Please file another bug when you *remove* gtk2-engines-gtk-qt from the > > archive completely, and I'll remove the Conflicts. Yes, this needs to > > be etch+1. > Sure. I just filed the bug in order to in form you. It would have helped me if you had filed a bug post-etch, i.e. when I can do something about the dependency... Bye, -- Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
