On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 19:08:36 -0500 (EST), Sean <seanlkml@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > This issue you keep raising just seems like a > boondoggle in the face of trying to solve real issues of interoperability. Feel free to read any intent you feel you need to into what I'm saying. I'm looking at what I see as the historical 'implied' usage of library naming scheme in use. I'd love to be told I am wrong, and that this hasn't been a reason why the particular naming scheme has been used in the past. But if this has been an reason in the past.. its worth noting and trying to understand why it was deemed important before. You feel this isn't an important issue... fine... your opinion. But I want to make sure that everyone in this discussion has a competent understanding of WHY we have the current naming scheme... before myopic decisions are made with regard to what to do in the future. You don't think this is an important issue.. fine... but your opinion of its importance doesn't change whether or not the issue of 'expiring' is a reason why the naming scheme is currently in use. Regardless of what you think the correct path forward is... i think its vitally important to have an understanding of WHY the current naming scheme is being used to underpin any competent discussion about how to change it. I'm not sure any of the vocal proponents of the naming policy change have an understanding of why the current naming scheme exists. > Can we please get on with the task of making software > installation, along with the necessary dependencies easier? Once everyone has a good feel for why the current naming scheme exists... maybe... sort of depends on whether the 'right' people's priorities line up with yours. I'm not even sure the 'right' people are even reading this thread any more so any further discussion may very well be moot. -jef"playing the jester to the moot court"spaleta -jef
