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.
