On 15 June 2010 23:37, Bram Schoenmakers <lists@bramschoenmakers.nl> wrote:
2010/6/14 Ray Rashif <schivmeister@gmail.com>:
Hi,
Since the one following the naming convention is unmaintained, I would suggest adopting it with the contents of the other one. But I have no problem with deleting it, since it meets most of the criteria for removal.
Sounds sensible - I'm happy to adopt the unmaintained one, but I notice that Bram Schoenmakers is maintaining the other version so should have first refusal.
Yes, it would be up to Bram. He could either:
1) keep on maintaining current package 2) disown current package and adopt the orphan 3) disown current package and let someone else (you) adopt the orphan
Is it that important, the naming convention? Still, I have no problem with taking option 2. Downside is that the current package loses its votes. Not that I attach much value to that, but maybe someone else cares. :)
Nope, not that important or big of a deal (at least not as long as it's in [unsupported]). The only benefit is that you stay in line with the naming in [extra], so it would then be more search-friendly. And yes, the votes will be lost, but they can grow again :) In any case, let us know which option you're comfortable with so we can remove one of them. If you do go with (2), I'd suggest that you add: replaces=('plasma-daisy-plasmoid') Or with (1), you could: provides=('kdeplasma-addons-applets-daisy') -- GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD