Re: Intend to package mountapp
On Fri, Mar 12, 1999 at 07:20:08PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Olaf Stetzer wrote:
> > BTW: I remember a discussion about the correct naming of the binaries
> > and debian-package for docking apps. What is the correct way? Naming it
> > by the tarball name - in this case mountapp - or by the binary which would
> > be mount.app IIRC?
>
> Please name it like the tarball: mountapp. This might be a special
> situation where it might be useful to name it wm-mountapp or windowmaker-mountapp
> because it's only useful for windowmaker. Please exchange with the
> windowmaker maintainer and maintainers of other wm- apps if there
> are any.
We didn't really reached an agreement regarding this issue.
Alfredo Kojima, Window Maker author, once asked in a public list to stop
naming applications wmthis and wmthat because most of them are not really WM
specific.
In Mount.app's specific case, it can be perfectly used without wmaker. In
fact, most (all?) wm* apps can be used without wmaker. The only thing that
makes them require wmaker is the look. WINGs, a widget set that emulates
NeXTStep's look, doesn't require Window Maker. WRlib, window maker's
rasterizing library, doesn't require Window Maker. WMlib is the only thing
that requires Window Maker, and even that isn't entirely true.
Rounding up, I think Mount.app's name is Mount.app, dot+app included. _I_
would call the package mount.app (I maintain wmppp.app)... the only
non-option is "mount".
Marcelo
Reply to: