On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Corrin Lakeland wrote:
> I'm packaging gnubg (gnu backgammon program). I'm a bit worried that this
> name is too short and I should call it gnubackgammon or something.
Why do you think this name is too short? There are even many packages that
have names with only 2 or 3 letters.
> I asked upstream and they said:
>
> > Personally I have a slight preference for gnubg for consistency, but I
> > don't particularly mind if you call it something else.
>
> I don't really mind, I just want to upset and confuse the minimum number of
> people.
If upstream calls the program "gnubg" and there's no other problem (e.g. a
name conflict with another package) it's the best to use this name.
> Corrin
cu
Adrian
--
Nicht weil die Dinge schwierig sind wagen wir sie nicht,
sondern weil wir sie nicht wagen sind sie schwierig.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
