Re: Renaming packages
>>>>> "WB" == William Ballard <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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