Bug#253511: [PROPOSAL] clarify "package must have a name that's unique ..."

[Bill Allombert <allomber@math.u-bordeaux.fr>]

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 10:46:30PM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Most of us think that keeping *unique* name requires the choice of
> package name to be *sane* :)  (Yes, I know a gnustep application
> packager disagreed.)

Whoever s/he is has no case. GNUstep apps are called with a .app suffix,
like Terminal.app, it is even advertised in the description:
"Terminal.app provides terminal emulation in a GNUstep environment."
So the upstream name is Terminal.app, so terminal seems farther
from upstream name than e.g. "terminal.app", if it is the intend, and
adding a prefix like gnustep- make easier to find packages related to
GNUstep.

Forbidding packages with 2 or 3 letters name because someone want to
use a generic 8 letters name seems a bit far fetched.

Also the issue of package name is parallel to the issue of executable names.
Given than a package might include several executables, the executables
namespace (executable in the PATH) is a scarser resource than packages
names. So I see no benefit most of the time for forbidding packages
name that are allowed for binary. For example, bc and dc are traditionnal
UN*X programs, so getting rid of bc and dc as packages name is unlikely
to improve things.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here.