Re: more overly-generic package names from gnustep
> 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.
Nobody's suggesting renaming the binaries. Just the packages, in order
to make it clearer to users faced with a very large set of choices how
these apps fit into the grander scheme of things.
(Yes, you can read the package description. But with faced with such an
incredibly large number of packages as we have in debian, being able to
gain this information from the package name alone has got to be a help.)
It's quite common to have binary packages given different names from
upstream in order to clarify their role within debian as a whole (the
gtk-engines-* packages are another example that comes to mind). I don't
think this is a particularly controversial suggestion.