Re: potential future namespace clash (Policy 2.3.1)
On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 07:40:20AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-06-16 at 20:24, 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.)
> Think harder. Consider bash, grep, login, mount, tar, at, apt, info,
> bison, flex, make, finger, etc.
Yes I understand. I think you missed my exchanges with Joey Hess and my
other newer posts.
I retracted this excessive limitations and reiterated my intent to be
"considerate" naming. I still think that "terminal" is not a good
choice for this package name.
I think opinion of Colin Walters to be very sensible. I do understand
reality stated by Florian Weps to be very true but this does not negate
the effort to make the package name space manageable.
That is just my opinion.
~\^o^/~~~ ~\^.^/~~~ ~\^*^/~~~ ~\^_^/~~~ ~\^+^/~~~ ~\^:^/~~~ ~\^v^/~~~ +++++
Osamu Aoki @ Cupertino CA USA
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org