| 1 |
On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 10:09, Markus Nigbur wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 23:18:09 -0500 (EST) |
| 3 |
> "donnie berkholz" <spyderous@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > I had imagined renaming anything that was *-update to config-* also |
| 6 |
> > for consistency. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Ehrm, IMHO *-update should be scripts that don't need any user |
| 9 |
> interaction, like env-update or opengl-update (and yes, etc-update is an |
| 10 |
> exception; even so it should really be called etc-config. ;) |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> so i partly disagree with renaming those to config-*, as it's not a |
| 13 |
> configuration process, but an automatic update of something. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
opengl-update does require user interaction, it needs to know which set |
| 16 |
of GL libs to link to. You can't just run "opengl-update," you need to |
| 17 |
run opengl-update ati, opengl-update nvidia or opengl-update xfree. In |
| 18 |
essence this is no different from gcc-config, distcc-config or |
| 19 |
java-config. |
Archives