On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 09:38:12PM +0300, Teodor MICU wrote: > On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 9:11 PM, Eckhart Wörner <[email protected]> wrote: > > The reason I chose those names was because the transition will probably be > > smoother with them. But of course you're free to choose any package names > > you > > like. :-) > > I don't see how adding two new packages will be smoother than only one > new package. However, this is not for me to decide since I'm not the > maintainer. ;-)
Hiya, And the maintainer is not really sure about the benefits of this split. Mainly because it makes not sense to have a 'openvpn' package containing nothing useful (examples, docs, and the init.d script) and a package with just the binary (no init.d, no /etc/openvpn/,...). The init script does nothing if you/NetworkManager don't feed /etc/openvpn, and it exits with a warning, not an error, so who/whatever monitors that, should be able to tell the difference :) openvpn's package is not big/complicated enough to be split. IMHO. Regards, Alberto -- Alberto Gonzalez Iniesta | Formación, consultoría y soporte técnico agi@(inittab.org|debian.org)| en GNU/Linux y software libre Encrypted mail preferred | http://inittab.com Key fingerprint = 9782 04E7 2B75 405C F5E9 0C81 C514 AF8E 4BA4 01C3 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
