[04:25] bdrung: ping [07:46] AnAnt: pong [08:13] bdrung: yes, I wonder why eclipse changed the naming convention for libswt* packages ? [08:14] bdrung: is it intended that swt-gtk source package won't be updated anymore ? [08:23] hmm, later [09:32] back [14:38] AnAnt: Hi - I am not quite sure what the future of the swt-gtk source is. The maintainer of it is a member of the eclipse team as well and as I recall, he did the renaming of the swt packages from eclipse. I never questioned his reasons for this. [14:39] I think you mean Adrian, I talked to him on OFTC, and he told me to file a bug on LP against eclipse, so that's what I did [14:42] AnAnt: for the rename of the eclipse binary swt package when he did it himself? [14:44] 15:57 seems like we took that approach since they were pushing into maintaining a single copy of swt-gtk, the eclipse one [14:44] 15:57 it should be fixed soon [14:45] 15:57 but you can get most of our attention if you file a bug against the source package [14:45] 15:57 we would eventually rename binary packages [14:46] so I filed the bug [14:47] AnAnt: Hmm, thanks for the clarification. [14:49] but since then, I've been getting comments on the LP bug that gave me the impression that eclipse won't revert back the naming convention for libswt* packages [14:52] AnAnt: I do not mind renaming back the packages to their original name (again I never saw the reason for renaming in the first place). [14:53] AnAnt: I admit that I hope that the swt provided by eclipse will eventually replace the swt-gtk source package and will love to fix the other problem you reported (the SWTError) [15:00] fine with me, but I hope that both Ubuntu & Debian have a unified (or at least compatible) approach regarding eclipse & swt-gtk [15:02] AnAnt: Don't worry, we intend to maintain eclipse in Debian as well. [15:22] good