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

Re: Again: "metapackage", "meta package" or "meta-package" (Was: Accepted cdd 0.5.3 (source all))

Justin B Rye <jbr@edlug.org.uk> wrote:
> Andreas Tille wrote:
> >>[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-l10n-english/2008/04/msg00006.html
> > I'm keeping
> > Ben Armstrong in CC who is a native speaker and he used in the Debian
> > Junior packages the spelling "meta package".
> The problem with this is that "meta" as a freestanding adjective has
> a different meaning - online dictionaries say things like:
> # Self-referential; referring to itself or its characteristics, esp.
> # as a parody; about. Example: "That book is so meta".

At best, "meta package" would be a two-word noun, not an adjective and
a noun.  (Compare with "the Yugoslavia report" which is a valid noun.)
In line with the various style guides that argue that compound nouns
become hyphenated and then eventually become single words, I'd write
it as "metapackage".

Maybe we should be calling them more mainstream like "task packages",
"requirements packages" or something like that instead?

My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

Reply to: