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

[Andreas Tille <tillea@rki.de>]

On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, Ben Armstrong wrote:

> Either meta-package or metapackage would be fine.

So no cons against metapackage but several pros.  I will try to

    s/meta[- ]package/metapackage

in all texts I'm responsible for and commit that the lintian check
is a good thing.

> > Maybe we should be calling them more mainstream like "task packages",
> > "requirements packages" or something like that instead?
>
> Good luck getting people to follow suit.

Well there was another voice that our terminology is not optimal.
But I think this is another topic.  We just talked about spelling
of a term we are using for a long time - so we should fix the
spelling first.  Later we could discuss proper naming of

   metapackages
   tasks
   Custom Debian Distributions (which is the most boring missnamer [2])

Thanks for your input

         Andreas.


[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-custom/2008/07/msg00009.html
[2] http://wiki.debian.org/CDDNamingProposals

--
http://fam-tille.de