Re: intent to package common music
On Sat, 1 May 1999, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 1999 at 04:28:46PM -0700, bradleyb wrote:
> > if there are no objections, I was going to name the package cm -- would
> > that be alright, or would it be considered namespace pollution?
> > If not cm, I guess I would call it commonmusic (common-music?)
> > cmusic is the name of a totally different program, so that one's out.
>
> I think cm is a name that does not tell me anything. "cm, uh. Centimeter?"
>
> common-music is a name you can reckognize while listing the ftp directory
> content. Much better IMHO.
Yes, that's true. But the same thing is true for every two letter
package.
The program is actually distributed and well known as cm. i.e. if you
were looking for as specialized a program as common music, you would know
to look for cm. The executable is also called cm.
Does anybody else think that adding any more two-letter packages is a bad
idea? -- There are at least 33 now.
-Brad
Reply to: