9 Jan
2006
9 Jan
'06
8:57 p.m.
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 09:06:15PM +0100, Mark Rosenstand <mark@archlinux.org> wrote:
libpacman doesn't sound too good, but any less flavored name should do the trick. I guess it all boils down to whether pacman is "a package manager" or "the Arch Linux package manager" - so, what is it? :-)
just look at the code, in pacman, there are pacman_sync, pacman_add, etc. in libalpm, there are alpm_addtarget, alpm_relase, etc. now if libalpm would be renamed to libpacman, then probably we would rename alpm_addtarget to pacman_addtarget, and so, which would mess up the current structure udv / greetings, VMiklos -- Developer of Frugalware Linux, to make things frugal - http://frugalware.org