Bug#137915: Renamed to 'pm-base'
Thomas Hood <jdthood@yahoo.co.uk> cum veritate scripsit:
> The name of this package has been provisionally changed
> to pm-base. Unless someone suggests something better,
> that's what we'll use.
Why does it need to be abbreviated ?
Is "powermanagement-base" not an option?
If it's a package that normal users won't install directly,
it won't cause too much trouble, even if the package name is longish.
"pm" reminds me too much of "perl modules".
And this can potentially give people similar confusion to that
psmisc and psutils are giving.
regards,
junichi
--
dancer@debian.org : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer
GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4
Reply to: