| 1 |
On 2/8/2005 16:30:45, Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.- (msterret@××××.com) wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > I'm still awaiting any solid arguments against x11-proto, and they had |
| 5 |
> > best be expedited (read below for why). |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Well, I kind of mentioned it on irc, but I'll throw it out here too. |
| 8 |
> I think the name "proto" is pretty vague and would prefer |
| 9 |
> to see headers (ala sys-kernel/linux-headers, etc.) but since upstream |
| 10 |
> uses that name, I guess I can live with it. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
IMHO living with the upstream name is worth more than renaming to 'x11-headers'. |
| 13 |
It isn't an extraction/repackaging of something else (c.f. sys-kernel/linux-headers), |
| 14 |
which would be implied by a name different from upstream. x11-proto does include |
| 15 |
the docs for the apis as well, so that's a small point against renaming to x11-headers. |
| 16 |
In the long term, people programming to the x11 protocol will be conditioned to |
| 17 |
program against the upstream 'proto' module, so sticking with that name shouldn't |
| 18 |
really cause any confusion. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Kev. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives