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

Re: Good way to write GNOME (packaging issue)



Sebastien Bacher <seb128@debian.org> writes:
> Good remark from tbm (http://bugs.debian.org/253466):
>
> "It seems there is lots of inconsistency about how "Gnome"/"GNOME" is
> spelled.  Maybe you can raise this issue on the debian gnome list and
> get peopl to agree on one spelling?"
>
> So, the right way to write it is GNOME (GNOME 2), we should probably use
> it in all the packages's descriptions (same for GTK+).
>
> Any comment ? What do you people think about this ?

GNOME sounds right.

Marc
-- 
$_=')(hBCdzVnS})3..0}_$;//::niam/s~=)]3[))_$(rellac(=_$({pam(esrever })e$.)4/3*
)e$(htgnel+23(rhc,"u"(kcapnu ,""nioj ;|_- |/+9-0z-aZ-A|rt~=e$;_$=e${pam tnirp{y
V2ajFGabus} yV2ajFGa&{gwmclBHIbus}gwmclBHI&{yVGa09mbbus}yVGa09mb&{hBCdzVnSbus';
s/\n//g;s/bus/\nbus/g;eval scalar reverse   # <mailto:marc@marcbrockschmidt.de>

Attachment: pgp9iXBjCmkbJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: