> > 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. Thanks. > > 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. My concern was that that information is not readily-accessible. (There are already a huge number of packages in the archive, which people have to sift through; imagine having to list dependencies in the frontends too) > > c) There is already a "ticker" in the archive - did you even *check*? > > oops. will do next time. No probs. > > 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. In that case, I'll apologise. Given this particular situation, I thought you were suggesting that it should be unconditional.
Attachment:
pgpBdS6t2MRRc.pgp
Description: PGP signature