Re: RFC: debhelper v2
> > Mark me down as preferring move.<package> like someone else (I've just
> > deleted the email). <package>.foo is uglier than foo.<package> IMHO.
>
> I can see how it would seem ugly the other way too. It really depends on
> how you think. I'm glad to know I'm not the only one with thought
> patterns that foo.package works better, even in a ls..
>
> Doesn't mean I expect we'll get it that way and it's not a huge problem
> if we don't. =>
well, joeyh isn't the only one who thinks package.foo is the prettier way
either; imho it fits the general philosophy better. i basically think the
most general thing should be the last component (you never see gz.txt.README
do you?), and what the purpose of the file is seems to me more general than
what package it works for. but as you said it's not at all a huge issue.
--phouchg
"For a price I'd do about anything, except pull the trigger: for that I'd
need a pretty good cause" -- Queensryche, "Revolution Calling"
PGP 5.0 key (0xE024447449) at http://cif.rochester.edu/~jpt/pubkey.txt
Reply to: