Le dim 29/08/2004 � 20:44, Amaya a �crit : > J�r�me Warnier wrote: > > The package name doesn't have to be descriptive, it must be the name > > of the program, nothing more. > > s/descriptive/user friendly/g I feel like package name should be close to upstream's name, because we want user to install like: "I want to install COG, how am I going to do it? This is Debian, so I guess apt-get install cog should be the right thing." And Bingo, it was! ;-) Well, this was the novel-way to describe it. Let's discuss it here.
> > Uptsream's tar.gz is still named "cog" also. > > Friendly joke: > Q: Why did the chicken cross the road? > A: Because upstream said so Of course, but as it is a relatively new and tiny program, we could talk to the upstream author about that. Right? > What I mean is that I like it better, nothing else :-) I don't agree, because, as I already said, "GNOME Configurator" doesn't really tell what it does. "COnfigurator for GNOME" tells it better, I think, but is not suitable as package name. Sven is probably right also that "cog" is a way too short name, and we risk namespace pollution, but if no-one never takes the name, it doesn't make sense either. > And upstream doesn't always have to be right. Especially if it is using Fedora, you're right ;-) So, what do we do? -- J�r�me Warnier Consultant BeezNest http://beeznest.net
