Re: more overly-generic package names from gnustep
miles@lsi.nec.co.jp (Miles Bader) writes:
> But what about my original point -- are others also annoyed by this
> namespace pollution?
>
Care to explain what justifies calling this application naming
namespace *pollution*?
I don't see why this should be considered namespace pollution. Just
because the application name matches a generic term, which still
nobody else has dared to use for naming an application, instead of
using some "creatively" invented name doesn't really strike me as a
problem at all.
Namespace pollution might be a problem with very short names like "mc"
for the Midnight Commander or something similar.
> Is there any reason not to fix it?
>
Naming GNUstep applications the generic way they are currently named
strikes me as very elegant and aesthetically pleasing. This definitely
fits the GNUstep approach and shouldn't be subsequently uglified for
and by Debian maintainers.
So don't even try fixing what is not even remotely broken.
Reply to: