On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 04:44:16PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
binary name: dillo version : 2.0 rc file : dillo2rc
I think the binary name should be dillo2 . It's consistent with dillo2rc for the rc file. It's also consistent with the established convention for packages like fltk , gtk and gpg where the OS level treats different major versions as entirely different packages (even though the users/developers think of them as merely different versions of the same package). This is critical for library packages which really must support installing multiple versions. For example, I run both fltk and fltk2 applications so it's vital that I can install both major versions and be sure that applications will always link to the right one. This works only because the OS treats the two as entirely different. Of course, dillo2 is not a library package, but I think it should follow the same convention on the grounds of least surprise. (Unless there is a compelling reason not to, but I don't think that there is.) It's like Superman II and The Dark Night, the sequel is better than the original! No need to hide it! Jeremy Henty