Re: Choosing a sensible name for a new package split from octave3.0

[Raphael Geissert <atomo64+debian@gmail.com>]

Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
...
> 
>     octave3.0-mscripts (although, there will be other files than *.m in
>     the
>         package)
...
> 
> Suggestions?
> 

Why not just octave3.0-scripts? (note the missing 'm').
It would make more sense than a -data or -common package to me as it really
describes the content.

Cheers,
-- 
Atomo64 - Raphael

Please avoid sending me Word, PowerPoint or Excel attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html