Re: Namespace pollution
Remco Blaakmeer writes ("Re: Namespace pollution"):
> On Mon, 6 Apr 1998, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Mar 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > Approval will not normally be granted except for the use of capital
> > > letters where there appear in an upstream package command name.
> >
> > Was this approved? Christian?
> >
> > I'm packaging Login.app, a graphical login prompt. The name of
> > the binary is Login.app, dot and all. Does this pollute
> > namespace? The .app part is going to be troublesome, because it
> > looks like a couple of upstream authors think it's cool to have
> > program names ending in .app, like NeXTStep... hmmmfff! Since
> > Ian's proposal said "not matching [^a-z0-9] login-app isn't valid
> > either...
There is no problem with `.' (except at the start). Read my posting
again.
According to the policy I proposed `Login.app' falls into `requires
approval' but not `approval not normally granted'.
Under the circumstances I don't particularly see why we should
object. Clearly `Login.app' is better than `login' :-).
> Thinking about that, what about in.telnetd and friends?
See above.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: