<div 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;">Although I see this is strictly not necessary...<br>
<br>
But I was not necessary to rename libevas-engines to<br>
libevas-0.9.9.050a-engines as well, because renaming pf libevas package is<br>
enough to handle binary-incompatibility hell, dependences will do the<br>
rest. <br></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
I still thing it is ugly to have libevas-0.9.9.050b together with<br>
libevas-0.9.9.050a-engines.<br>
We should rename back to libevas-engines, or rename to<br>
libevas-0.9.9.050b-engines.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>I did the latter yesterday. You might be interested in subscribing to pkg-e-commits [1], it's relatively low-traffic and that probably would make it easier for you to track changes.<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
Using unversioned libevas-engines name may be better because other packages<br>
have to depend on it, so versioned libevas-engines name makes maintaince<br>
of those a bit harder (e.g. have to fix debian/control instead of just<br>
rebuild).<br>
<br>
What do you think?<br>
<font color="#888888"></font></blockquote><div><br>I completely agree. In fact, I was about to make the same proposal. I'll do the changes today<br><br>Regards,<br>Albin<br><br>[1] <a href="http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-e-commits">http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-e-commits</a></div>
<br></div><br>