On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 02:45:47AM -1000, Warren Togami wrote: > Joe Orton wrote: > >On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 06:34:06PM -1000, Warren Togami wrote: > > > >>Is this really worth more years of headache? Here are two proposals to > >>deal with this. > > > > > >I don't think there is strong enough motivation to rename the packages. > >If Fedora Extras wishes to maintain an "imap" package then they can do > >so without needing to rename libc-client, modulo bug #132928. So I've > >built a libc-client package without the "Conflicts: imap" to fix that > >bug. > > I still maintain that "libc-client" is a horrible name for the package, > but this is technically acceptable at least. Yes, it would be for almost every package in Fedora. Maybe we could rename every package to libc-client-xxx, the kernel to libc-server-yyy, and glibc to libc,the?... libsomething is a common name, why not change to libimap? Regards, Luciano
