Debian bug report logs - #673
xcompR6 and xdevelR6 packages are poorly named

Message received at debian-bugs:

From cus.cam.ac.uk!iwj10 Thu Mar 30 13:40:45 1995
Return-Path: <iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk>
Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp
	(Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0ruRxN-0007G5A; Thu, 30 Mar 95 13:40 PST
Received: from bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk by pixar.com with SMTP id AA17535
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <debian-bugs@pixar.com>); Thu, 30 Mar 1995 13:37:59 -0800
Received: by bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk 
	(Smail-3.1.29.0 #30) id m0ruRql-000BzhA; Thu, 30 Mar 95 22:33 BST
Received: by chiark (Smail3.1.28.1 #3)
	id m0ruRfz-0002gOA; Thu, 30 Mar 95 22:22 BST
Message-Id: <m0ruRfz-0002gOA.ijackson@nyx.cs.du.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 95 22:22 BST
From: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson)
To: Debian bugs submission address <debian-bugs@pixar.com>
Subject: xcompR6 and xdevelR6 packages are poorly named
Precedence: air-mail

Package: xcompR6, xdevelR6
Version: 3.1.1-1

The names of these packages don't seem to agree with their
descriptions:

xcompR6 - This package has all the stuff needed to compile programs for X1R6.
xdevelR6 - Static X11R6 libraries.                                           

It seems to me that the first description should apply to a package
called `xdevelR6' and the second should apply to something called
`xstaticlibsR6' perhaps.

Changing package names is usually a bad idea, but this is a
particularly egregious case and warrants the upset, I think.

Ian.