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

Re: Renaming GNUstep packages

>>>>> "GM" == Glenn Maynard <g_deb@zewt.org> writes:

    GM> (Sorry, Evan, but I simply don't believe that you can't
    GM> understand the problem with using the extremely generic
    GM> package name "terminal".

I comprehend; I don't agree.

I comprehend that there is a theoretical possibility of confusion on
the part of users who somehow see the package name without reading the
descriptions*. I think this is a remote possibility with low negative
consequences; information from popularity-contest shows that there's
not really much evidence of folks over-installing this or other
generically-named GNUstep packages.

I also comprehend that the name 'terminal' could be needed for, say,
some kind of console data or for a pseudo-package, like
'x-terminal-emulator'. But it's not used for that, and it's not really
likely to, barring a major reorganization of Debian.

I comprehend that folks seem to think that there's something
unsporting about snatching the gorgeous prize of the 'terminal' name,
and using it to promote this package or perhaps GNUstep in general. I
don't agree with the underlying model of ruthless competition between

What I don't comprehend is, outside these three arguments, that
there's some kind of "corruption" or "pollution" of the Debian package
namespace. That's all I was asking.

    GM> You're pretending not to understand, hoping you can get away
    GM> with using the most generic package names possible to make
    GM> your own packages stand out more.)

No, I'm really not. I think that'd be a completely stupid thing to do,
and I hope that the number of DDs who'd pull such asinine tricks with
no obvious benefit is few.

I mostly just like doing the Right Thing. In my opinion, the Right
Thing here is following the de facto standard for application
packages: using the upstream software's name as the package
name. Other GNUstep application packages don't deviate from this.

I realize that every rule has its exceptions, but I don't see the
above arguments as really convincing me that 'terminal' is one.


* The only way I can see this happening is if a user is running
"apt-get install" blindly looking for packages, or scrolls down
through thousands of packages in a package manager interface like
synaptic, aptitude, or dselect, seeing the terminal package, ignoring
the description (maybe by covering one eye?), and choosing it.

Evan Prodromou

Reply to: