[Pkg-e-devel] Updated Debian packages for Enlightenment

Ross Vandegrift ross at kallisti.us
Fri Nov 20 14:39:22 UTC 2015

On 11/19/2015 04:46 PM, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> In any case, should the binary packages (and possible also the source package?)
> not be renamed to be called e19? On the other hand, upstream seems to be
> pumping out releases in a faster pace these days, so maybe the source package
> name should just be "e"? I don't see anything in policy that prevents
> one-letter source package names. On the other hand there doesn't exist a source
> package yet with only a one-letter-long name.

Originally, I meant importing upstream, not renaming.  I left the name
"e17" alone just to reduce change, and keep things simpler.  It is
misleading, and I like the idea of fixing it.

But lintian doesn't like "e".  It triggers source-field-malformed,
citing 5.6.1 of the policy manual.  "enlightenment" is another
possibility.  I thought that was used by DR16 packages, but the
changelog indicates it was "e16".


More information about the Pkg-e-devel mailing list