Re: ITP: water -- A graphical water effect demo.
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 02:38:15PM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org> writes:
> > I disagree. The policy is to avoid namespace polution, which means
> > that package names should be as specific as possible. Imagine if
> > the first 26 packages were named a through z, just because they
> > could be and they were first come first served?
>
> I wrote:
>
> > > If it were a word that referred to common activity, then it might be
> > > considered too generic, but it's not.
>
> The point being that there has to be *some* point at which you stop
> trying to be more specific in a package name, and when a name is
> unlikely to cause conflict in the future, the maintainer has more
> freedom in choosing that point.
Yes, but I don't believe you have reached that point with this package.
> If the program is called `water' then it's perfectly fine to call the
> package `water'.
Very well, I will begin work on a package called 'l', just so I can
publish a package of the same name. (This will be particular amusing
because it should catch a few people mistyping 'ls'.)
> [The suggested alternative `sdlwater' is completely wrong, since it
> simply adds an arbitrary implementation detail to the name -- something
OK, so call it water-demo or waterdemo or something along those lines.
I looked through the output of 'dpkg -l' on one of my systems and
saw very few packages with plain English names.
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@debian.org> <hamish@cloud.net.au>
Reply to: