[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Renaming packages

Evan Prodromou <evan@debian.org> writes:
> In other words: I don't think anything here is technically defective
> nor out of order with Debian policy. I don't think there's anything
> misleading or conflicting. 

So have you completely missed the previous threads on this list
bitching about your package names?

The package names _are_ misleading:  they imply (even if they don't
explicitly state) that these packages are somehow more generic than the
other 3,478 terminal-emulators/pdf-viewers/etc present in debian.

A reasonable solution is to rename the packages gnustep-FOO.  The binary
names will then not be the same as the package names, but that's not a
particular problem.  The binary names will _still_ be misleading, but it
will be less harmful, because it only affects those people who installed
the packages.

Such generic names may have been fine on NeXTStep, where a single
company controlled exactly what apps users would see, but they  are
simply not a very good idea in heterogeneous environment like debian,
and this applies especially to the packaging namespace.

`Life is a boundless sea of bitterness'

Reply to: