RE: Renaming GNUstep packages
Evan Prodromou wrote:
> 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.
Like you say, it's not a reliability risk thing.
It's a usability thing.
Give expressive names to packages. "terminal", despite being the upstream
name of the software, is NOT expressive, except when you already know that
it's the upstream name.
> 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.
You're ignorantly overlooking the fact that the vast majority of packages
which are named plainly after upstream simply do not have non-expressive
The Right Thing to do is to either make upstream adopt a distinct name, or
at least choose a more specific name for your package, like
"gnustep-terminal" or "malmbergs-terminal".