Re: more overly-generic package names from gnustep
On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 01:01:05PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 12:46:33AM +0100, Paul Seelig wrote:
> > Naming GNUstep applications the generic way they are currently named
> > strikes me as very elegant and aesthetically pleasing. This definitely
> Does that mean that only one project is allowed to be elegant and
> aesthetically pleasing? This seems unfortunate.
I have some recent experience with this: I made my little package called
"pim." Too generic. The solution was to name the package "tupim", the
and install /usr/bin/tupim, /usr/share/man/man1/tupim.1, and symlink
pim -> tupim, pim.1 -> tupim.1, unless there is already a file by that
name present.
Since the realty is that a naming conflict is unlikely and that indeed
only one project *will* be elegant and aesthetically pleasing (but any
is *allowed* to be), everybody wins.
Reply to: