Bug#397164: package name changed, please update your depends/recommends/conflicts field

[Loïc Minier]

        Hi,

On Sun, Nov 05, 2006, Bastian Venthur wrote:
> Which policy? A few months ago I asked on several lists (including
> -gnome) whether I could rename the package.

 Well, doh, as far as I can see you got reply from Josselin that if you
 have a file in the Gtk2 engine dir, you should name the package
 gtk2-engines-foo...

>                                             No real arguments against
> the renaming where given and it turned out that there is not really a
> policy about the naming scheme.

 No "real" arguments?  Like following a naming scheme to distinguish
 Gtk1 engines from Gtk2 engines?  You do know that Josselin and me were
 almost the sole two GNOME maintainers?

 Do you really want me to write a mini-policy for that?  I can add it to
 the Gtk package, but I must be sure that I spend my time for something
 useful and that you're going to fix the package name.

>                                 In fact I feared that more people would
> protest against my plan to rename the package, but after all there was
> only one person arguing against the renaming.

 With me that makes it two, and back in july I did not see anything to
 add to what Joss said, he was correct.

> My arguments were (in short):
> - name confusing and misleading

 What is confusing and misleading in gtk2-engines-qt?  It's Gtk2 engine
 for Qt...

> - name does not fit in the gtk-engines-foo naming scheme (because it is
>   in fact a KDE app not a Gnome one)


 The gtk-engines-foo naming scheme is for Gtk1 engines...

> >  Please file another bug when you *remove* gtk2-engines-gtk-qt from the
> >  archive completely, and I'll remove the Conflicts.  Yes, this needs to
> >  be etch+1.
> Sure. I just filed the bug in order to in form you.

 It would have helped me if you had filed a bug post-etch, i.e. when I
 can do something about the dependency...

   Bye,
-- 
Loïc Minier <lool at dooz.org>