On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 05:03:41PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > Can be done, but I didn't offer that option because I don't really > like it. :-) At that point, I don't really see any reason to change > the package name from what it was in sarge. (There never was a good > reason, but it was done anyway because people didn't realize it was a > mistake, and the name change was allowed to stand because it didn't > seem to cause any problems.)
Not that it matters, but I am curious: so it would make you much happier if I had suggested making libfam0 a transitional dummy package to libfam0c102 instead of the other way around? -- Chuan-kai Lin http://www.cs.pdx.edu/~cklin/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
