On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 02:38:15PM +0900, Miles Bader wrote: > Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I disagree. The policy is to avoid namespace polution, which means > > that package names should be as specific as possible. Imagine if > > the first 26 packages were named a through z, just because they > > could be and they were first come first served? > > I wrote: > > > > If it were a word that referred to common activity, then it might be > > > considered too generic, but it's not. > > The point being that there has to be *some* point at which you stop > trying to be more specific in a package name, and when a name is > unlikely to cause conflict in the future, the maintainer has more > freedom in choosing that point.
Yes, but I don't believe you have reached that point with this package. > If the program is called `water' then it's perfectly fine to call the > package `water'. Very well, I will begin work on a package called 'l', just so I can publish a package of the same name. (This will be particular amusing because it should catch a few people mistyping 'ls'.) > [The suggested alternative `sdlwater' is completely wrong, since it > simply adds an arbitrary implementation detail to the name -- something OK, so call it water-demo or waterdemo or something along those lines. I looked through the output of 'dpkg -l' on one of my systems and saw very few packages with plain English names. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
