Re: texlive-basic_2005-1_i386.changes REJECTED
Thomas Viehmann <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Well, Debian as a project has effectively standardized (by practice) on
> the hyphenation that has been suggested all over the place in this
> thread. Debian users will and should be able to expect a Debian-style
> package naming.
> Dismissing comments favoring this hyphenation - in unison - as
> expressions of personal taste doesn't really reflect the fact that
> consistency is a quality Debian users look for in packages.
> If you provide the TeX live names in the long description, people will
> be able to find stuff by the usual package search functions.
I'm not sure why the goal of exact correspondence with texlive names is
important in the first place (if it's just because it's aesthetically
pleasing, then obviously the same argument can be made from a Debian
point of view as well).
I assume that people seeing/using texlive-in-debian are more likely to
be long-term Debian users rather than veteran texlive users, and will
benefit both from more readable package names, and (as you say) from
consistency with other debian packages. Note that there is a definite
benefit to this sort of consistency -- I often do operations in aptitude
by matching on package prefixes/suffix, e.g. everything matching "-doc"
For programs, some sort of correspondence with texlive names might be
useful, but that could be easily provide via other means (e.g. a mapping
file, or perhaps virtual packages like "texlive-collection-FOO").
*This is the cute kitty virus, please copy this into your sig so it can spread.