On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 10:46:27PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 12:54:16AM -0500, Tavin Cole wrote:
> > Changing the package name from Freenet has been brought up before. This
> > would be a good time to do that.
>
> I still don't really see the point. If we had a domain like
> "freenet.org" then it would be nice to use the
>
> package org.freenet;
>
> convention, but org.freenetproject is too much of a mouthful.
>
> Can anyone give one good reason to change the package name that would
> outweigh the effort required to do it?
The convention was written as a suggestion on how to virtual guarantee
distinct namespaces, assuming the author had a DNS presence. Its just a
suggestion though, and I for one see no reason to change. Plenty of
projects ignore the convention as well.
Scott
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20020102/0f77af71/attachment.pgp>
