On Tue, 2002-06-18 at 22:17, Osamu Aoki wrote: > 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. Yeh, I hadn't read that yet. I happen to agree with you about terminal, but for another reason: It denies the existance of many alternative terminal programs. I wouldn't like packages called 'webserver', 'editor', or 'mp3-player' for the same reason.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part