On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 09:37:16PM +0100, Otto Wyss wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 10:45:32AM +0000, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 07:55:03PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote: > > > > > > > What not rename linux-kernel-headers to simple system-headers-linux? > > > > This will prevent confused users (or: lazy to read the description > > > > users) > > > > from asking this again and again. > > > > > > system-headers-linux is a bit vague and without knowing could be > > > associated with the kernel just as strongly as with libc. > > > > > > How about libc-linux-headers? > > > > I second that, or perhaps libc6-linux-headers. > > If the package would have been named "libc6-linux-headers" to show its > strong relationship with libc6 I had never started this thread. I'm not > a fan of renaming but in this case IMO it seems to be appropriate.
But then the package would have to be changed for a new SONAME. And I don't see any benefits of using libc6-linux-headers, as opposed to libc-linux-headers. -- gram
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
