On 12/13 14:22, Jan Schaumann wrote:
> Soren Jacobsen <snj@pobox.com> wrote:
> > On 12/13 14:16, Jan Schaumann wrote:
>  
> > As I just told Juan, I think that it should be
> > wm/openbox, and we can move openbox 2, which is currently there, to
> > wm/openbox2 if it's desirable to keep it around.
> 
> I'm ambivalent about this.  Renaming packages can be confusing, but if
> openbox (ie 2) is no longer maintained or developed and openbox3 has
> become openbox, then maybe that's the right thing to do.  Other
> thoughts?

ob2 is no longer maintained.  At the least, I think ob3 should be in
wm/openbox.  There may be some people who want to use ob2 still, though,
and we should probably cater to them and provide a wm/openbox2.  I think
it's more confusing to have the "standard" openbox package install an
old version than it is to require those desiring the old version to look
for wm/openbox2.  This is what we did with chat/gaim (only using gtk1
instead of gaim06 or whatever), and I think it's the most reasonable
approach.