Re: more overly-generic package names from gnustep

[Ben Burton <bab@debian.org>]

> So the alternative so far is only to allow *no package at all* to be
> named in an elegant and aesthetically pleasing way? There can only be
> one for each name - be it a generic term or an invented name.  Why not
> allow this opportunity to those who are first? 

There's also the issue of potential disinformation.  For some users, a
package such as "terminal" may have an air of "this is *the* canonical
terminal app that everyone should install".  OTOH, leaving the overly
generic name unused makes the situation clear - this is simply one of a
very large number of alternative packages all of which more or less do
the same thing (and many of which are designed to offer consistency with
different desktop environments),

Ben.