<span style="font-family: verdana,sans-serif;" dir="ltr">2008/11/1 Philip Brown <<a href="mailto:phil@bolthole.com">phil@bolthole.com</a>></span><br style="font-family: verdana,sans-serif;"><div style="font-family: verdana,sans-serif;" class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="Ih2E3d">><br>
> And now I come to think of it, the dependency declarations are also going to<br>
> be impossible to reliably resolve if two organisations produce software<br>
> called CSWfoo, CSWbar...<br>
<br>
</div>what is the problem?<br>
its not like someone would want to use both sets of packages<br>
<div></div></blockquote><div><br>It's highly likely someone will intentionally want to use both. There are already packages in one and not the other. And versions are different for many things.<br><br>Equally concerning is that people will accidentally use both. If they change mirror to the wrong upstream things won't work as they should. Users will become annoyed when they find out why, and go back to downloading by hand from Sunfreeware.<br>
</div></div><br style="font-family: verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: verdana,sans-serif;">The whole point of using things like /opt/$NAME for directories and prefixing the package name is to prevent namespace clashes ... I stand by my opinion that both Blastwave and opencsw are going to look very, very foolish if they both distribute into /opt/csw.</span><br style="font-family: verdana,sans-serif;" clear="all">
<br style="font-family: verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: verdana,sans-serif;">-- </span><br style="font-family: verdana,sans-serif;"><font size="1"><span style="font-family: verdana,sans-serif;">Gary Law</span><br style="font-family: verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: verdana,sans-serif;"><a href="mailto:glaw@opencsw.org">glaw@opencsw.org</a></span><br style="font-family: verdana,sans-serif;"></font><br>