Re: Package names don't matter too much
On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 05:15:30PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> There's more to a package name than just being a key to tools. It is
> the name by which one remembers the software, even when he or she
> doesn't really know it; it is the name one uses when asking a friend
> (or Dr. Google) about it.
Do you realize that you just argued in favor of naming this CDDB? This
_is_ the name of this, ehem... bundle.
Go argue with upstream if you don't like their naming convetions. I
certainly don't like krap, it sickens me, but I manage to ignore it.
> > So this nameing discussion is about what package data should be
> > mangled into the package name, in this case especially what
> > dependency data.
> You wanted the discussion to be more general - then please
> acknowledge that it is not only, or even mainly, about dependencies.
> I have learned that I don't need to activate some GNUstep desktop to
> use cddb.bundle or terminal.app, so this is no reason to prepend
For me the easiest method for finding some piece of software for GNOME
$ grep-available -s Package -F Depends gtk2 -a -F Description mail
which _is_ about dependencies.
What you keep arguing about is something that is better solved at the
> There are more reasons, among them the wish to have names that can
> easily be recognized and memorized, and the wish to have a name that,
> if it isn't unique, at least makes it possible to distinguish the
> program from others: Not only in a technical sense, but in human
Yes, that's fine and that's what .app and .bundle are for.