On Sat, 2 Oct 2004, Rene Hexel wrote:

>    I don't think this is a good idea.  This way we will have to keep
> renaming packages (as this is a moving target), with tons of
> unnecessary rebuilds.  If packages are renamed at all, I would suggest
> renaming gal to gal1 and gal2 to gal22.  This way, there is no "gal"
> package and there is no need to constantly rename packages in the
> future.

That sounds like a good idea. (Although my preference is to have
package names and directory like gal2.2, such as gal2.2-2.2.1).

 Jeremy C. Reed

 	  	 	 open source, Unix, *BSD, Linux training
	  	 	 http://www.pugetsoundtechnology.com/