On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 12:23:22AM -0500, David B Harris wrote:
> > id have to disagree, the upstream name of the package should be used for
> > the debian package name ("ticker" in this, not "gnome-ticker"), and the
> > short description should include that it is a stock ticking program.
>
> That's unrealistic for several reasons:
[...]
> an extreme example would be somebody distributing an image viewer
> named "jpegview" that didn't support the JPEG format.
thats a good point.
> b) Our users care about what toolkits applications are written in;
> having an easily-identifiable nomenclature for that (gnome-*, for
> instance) makes their lives easier.
to me, including toolkit information in the program name is duplication
of information, since that information is already stated in the
dependencies list of the package.
> c) There is already a "ticker" in the archive - did you even *check*?
oops. will do next time.
> Perhaps you should explain _why_ you believe the upstream name should be
> used unconditionally.
i dont think all of this unconditionally. my orignal point was that
information about what a program does or what toolkit it uses is
contained elsewhere in the packages control file, not in its package
name.
--
gram
Attachment:
pgp_QV_4FcAVq.pgp
Description: PGP signature