Re: more overly-generic package names from gnustep
> Again, I have to point out the counter examples:
>
> pager for less and its ilk
> and display just being the binary that imagemagick provides
> cal
bab@espresso:~> apt-cache show pager display cal
W: Unable to locate package pager
W: Unable to locate package display
W: Unable to locate package cal
E: No packages found
bab@espresso:~>
FWIW, I'm talking about package names here - not binaries (I can't
vouch for what anyone else might be talking about though).
> It's just that you've said: okay, nobody will argue that *these* are the
> canonical tools. But you're stifling innovation!
I must say though, this claim completely mystifies me.
> The only real difference between "links" and "mozilla" providing
> /etc/alternatives/x-www-browser and GNUStep and Acrobat providing
> /etc/alternatives/viewpdf and Tom Ballard and Kontact and Evolution
> providing /etc/alternatives/pim is one of degree -- and that's a
> slipperly slope. You're being arbitrary and capricous.
Is this perhaps meant in response to someone else's mail? I fail to see
how this fits in with what I was saying at all.
Ben.
Reply to: