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

Re: Renaming packages

>>>>> "WB" == William Ballard <40311.nospam@comcast.net> writes:

    WB> The counter-argument is that "terminal" confuses people into
    WB> thinking it's *the* preferred terminal 

We have a way to say that a package is "the" anything: mark it "base",
"required", or "important".

    WB> It seems to me it comes down to whether you weigh the
    WB> package-name-same-as-upstream argument more than the
    WB> confusing-package-name argument.

That's about the size of it. I just don't buy the argument that the
name is confusing, or that Terminal has an unfair advantage over the
other poor ol' terminal emulator packages in the Great Debian Terminal
Emulator Package Contest.

I'm looking forward to any proposed GNUstep application package naming
policy for Debian; I will of course comply. I favor the "*.app" naming
convention, since that's often used in the *step community to refer to


Evan Prodromou

Reply to: