On Sun, Sep 09, 2007 at 09:47:50AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> What's the best way forward?
>
> 5. something else?
How about convincing upstream that too generic library names are not a
good idea?
Gruesse,
--
Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
www: http://www.djpig.de/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/09/07 03:47, Neil Williams wrote:
> GPE includes libschedule which, when I originally packaged it, I
> thought was a likely candidate for a name collision either now or later
> because GPE is a small (self-contained) environment and 'schedule' is
GPE includes libschedule which, when I originally packaged it, I
thought was a likely candidate for a name collision either now or later
because GPE is a small (self-contained) environment and 'schedule' is
such a common thing to do in software. So I renamed the Debian package
libgpeschedule to mak
3 matches
Mail list logo