Re: Renaming packages
Evan Prodromou <firstname.lastname@example.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
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'