Re: Renaming GNUstep packages
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004, William Ballard wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 04, 2004 at 03:01:12AM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> > >>>>> "BN" == Brian Nelson <pyro@debian.org> writes:
> >
> > Me> In my opinion, the Right Thing here is following the de facto
> > Me> standard for application packages: using the upstream
> > Me> software's name as the package name.
> >
> > BN> Whoever said that using the upstream name was a "de facto
> > BN> standard?"
> >
> > Nobody said it. That's what makes it "de facto".
>
> As several have said, heretofore the two goals have not been in
> conflict, because the other upstream's names were not as generic as
> this. Had they been, they too would have to prefix their package names
> in some way.
I have been doing that to stuff like "reconstruct" and "quota" in the
Cyrus packages (adding a "cyr" prefix to them) since day one. The
previous maintainer of Cyrus did the same. I am not the only one doing
such renames in his packages, I am sure.
So yes, the two goals have been in conflict in the past, numerous times.
But most maintainers fix such issues before there is any need for huge
flamewars. I hope may do before the first upload of the package, even.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh
Reply to: