Re: potential future namespace clash (Policy 2.3.1)
On Sun, Jun 16, 2002 at 09:10:23PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > I agree. Common sense tells me that no ordinary package shall use any
> > word in "dict". (Maybe these names are OK for virtual package but no
> > particular program should use it.)
> That is a silly idea. One word: vim
Ha, ha, ha. I should have worded and thought more carefully. That was
too much :) My intent was that considerate name choice to avoid
potential future name collision shall be encouraged in Policy.
> The case with using "terminal" as a package name is somewhat different
> since it can be argued it's confusing, but you're going far overboard
> with your suggestion. This is a good example indeed of why a over or
> under broad rule in policy often doesn't work, and why we run package
> names by the group beforehand instead.
Current Policy Manual, Developer Reference, and New Maintainer's Guide
have no mention on "considerate package name choice". "specific
characters to use", "20 characters max" and "unique name" are all I can
If anyone can come up with some sensible guideline somewhere in these
documents, it should not harm. Then incident like "preferences" could
have been avoided.
After all these small packages peripheral to anther package shall start
with the same characters so it is easy to find in dselect and other
package handling tools. Maybe this should be stated in Policy or
~\^o^/~~~ ~\^.^/~~~ ~\^*^/~~~ ~\^_^/~~~ ~\^+^/~~~ ~\^:^/~~~ ~\^v^/~~~ +++++
Osamu Aoki @ Cupertino CA USA
See "User's Guide": http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/users-guide/
See "Debian reference": http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/reference/
"Debian reference" Project at: http://qref.sf.net
I welcome your constructive criticisms and corrections.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org