On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 12:23:22AM -0500, David B Harris wrote:
> > id have to disagree, the upstream name of the package should be used for
> > the debian package name ("ticker" in this, not "gnome-ticker"), and the
> > short description should include that it is a stock ticking program.
>
> That's unrealistic for several reasons:
[...]
> an extreme example would be somebody distributing an image viewer
> named "jpegview" that didn't support the JPEG format.thats a good point. > b) Our users care about what toolkits applications are written in; > having an easily-identifiable nomenclature for that (gnome-*, for > instance) makes their lives easier. to me, including toolkit information in the program name is duplication of information, since that information is already stated in the dependencies list of the package. > c) There is already a "ticker" in the archive - did you even *check*? oops. will do next time. > Perhaps you should explain _why_ you believe the upstream name should be > used unconditionally. i dont think all of this unconditionally. my orignal point was that information about what a program does or what toolkit it uses is contained elsewhere in the packages control file, not in its package name. -- gram
pgppY8MjFecL7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
