Re: RFS: go

To: debian-mentors@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: RFS: go
From: Brian Nelson <pyro@debian.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:50:03 -0700
Message-id: <877hp9zl1w.fsf@bignachos.net>
Mail-followup-to: debian-mentors@lists.debian.org
In-reply-to: <4BA23274.9050107@gmail.com> (Ivan Wong's message of "Thu, 18 Mar 2010 22:02:28 +0800")
References: <4BA20004.4080203@gmail.com> <201003181325.21192.dominique.dumont@hp.com> <4BA23274.9050107@gmail.com>

Ivan Wong <ivanwyc@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi Dominique,
>
> Yes I can see the confusion. go-lang sounds good to me. But I would
> like to have a little poll about which one is better, go-lang or
> golang? Any other suggestions?

'-lang' is commonly used in package names to refer to spoken languages
(e.g. texlive-lang-*).  I actually prefer the "google-go" suggestion
since I think that's the least ambiguous.

-- 
Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat.

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: RFS: go
  - From: Kartik Mistry <kartik.mistry@gmail.com>
- Re: RFS: go
  - From: Dominique Dumont <dominique.dumont@hp.com>

References:
- RFS: go
  - From: Ivan Wong <ivanwyc@gmail.com>
- Re: RFS: go
  - From: Dominique Dumont <dominique.dumont@hp.com>
- Re: RFS: go
  - From: Ivan Wong <ivanwyc@gmail.com>

Prev by Date: RFS: Hadoop
Next by Date: RFS: libticables (updated package, fixes FTBFS on kFreeBSD and SH4)
Previous by thread: Re: RFS: go
Next by thread: Re: RFS: go
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread