Re: ITP: preview -- General purpose image viewer for GNUstep
William Ballard <40711.nospam@comcast.net> writes:
> I respect GNUStep packagers for making an effort, but really ".app" is
> itself a generic name. It certainly violates the spirit of "make it
> unique" -- combining two generic terms does not produce a unique term.
> Both are ordinary dictionary words.
The word "app" in isolation is common. The construction <function>.app
is, in my experience, used exclusively by GNUstep and related
NeXTSTEP-inspired applications and is quite specific. As long as GNUstep
is also mentioned explicitly in the package definition, I have a hard time
seeing how a .app package name is either going to confuse users or
conflict with any other non-GNUstep package.
And I'm even one of the people who really doesn't care to ever install a
GNUstep application. :)
Between this ongoing naming debate and the ton of RC FHS bugs that are
sitting in the bug tracking system, I have to say that from the
perspective of an observer outside of these various arguments, it seems
like GNUstep applications have enough domain-specific controversial issues
that it would be nice to have a GNUstep policy document. If all of these
disputes could get hashed out once and a single consistent solution
documented and recommended, it might save frustration down the road.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: