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

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
 > "gnustep-". 

 For me the easiest method for finding some piece of software for GNOME
 is this:

$ grep-available -s Package -F Depends gtk2 -a -F Description mail
Package: rubrica
Package: gnome-pilot-conduits
Package: gnubiff

 which _is_ about dependencies.

 What you keep arguing about is something that is better solved at the
 UI level.

 > 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
 > language.

 Yes, that's fine and that's what .app and .bundle are for.


Reply to: