On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 09:44:25AM +0200, Geert Hendrickx wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 06:23:48PM -0400, Johnny Lam wrote:
> > The goal here is to have as few conflicts as possible between
> > packages.  Admittedly, it matters little for this package, since I
> > don't think any packages actually have a run-time dependency on
> > distcc, but the principle is still the same.
> 
> Ok, I'm with you now.  This way, binary packages depending on distcc
> (if there would be any), would pull in distcc, leaving users the
> choice to _additionally_ install distcc-gtk.  Otherwise, they would be
> forced to use the one depended on by that binary package.  

Another thing: (how) should the packages name reflect this difference?
i.e. should you be able to tell from distcc-gtk's name that it's either
an addon or an alternative package for distcc?  

GH

-- 
:wq