Re: more overly-generic package names from gnustep
Paul Seelig <pseelig@uni-mainz.de> schrieb:
> cjwatson@debian.org (Colin Watson) writes:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 12:46:33AM +0100, Paul Seelig wrote:
>>
>> Does that mean that only one project is allowed to be elegant and
>> aesthetically pleasing? This seems unfortunate.
>>
> So the alternative so far is only to allow *no package at all* to be
> named in an elegant and aesthetically pleasing way? There can only be
> one for each name - be it a generic term or an invented name. Why not
> allow this opportunity to those who are first?
Can, e.g., pdfviewer reasonably be used without tustep? Would the
command
$ pdfviewer /some/random/file.pdf
give reasonable output? Can it be launched from the menu in X and then
there's an "Open File" dialog that can be used to open
/some/random/file.pdf?
If yes, I would say: Keep the package name as it is (and get in contact
with the xpdf and policy guys, create a virtual package and an
alternatives entry "pdf-viewer"). If no, and pdfviewer depends on the
tustep infrastructure to be useful - then I'd say keep the elegant and
aesthetical way for some other competitor of xpdf.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie
Reply to: