Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 13:43:55 -0500
> Joe Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Christoph Mende wrote:
>>> Now the most logical name for an eclass like that
>>> would be xfce4.eclass, except that eclass already exists.
>> Since the new eclass is not version specific, how about simply
>> "xfce.eclass"?
>
> why bother introducing yet another xfce*.eclass when you can re-use an
> existing one?
Well, my thought (without knowing xfce details, albeit) if the eclass is now
not tied to version, having one with no version info in the name might serve
future xfce versions (5, 6, 7...) as well without requiring yet another name
change.
-Joe
