That sounds good to me. I realize the whole sucrose / fructose / starch thing has become a consensus but to me, not really knowing the scientific relationships between those words, they might as well have been named sugar-layer-0, sugar-layer-1, etc.
Cheers, Wade On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Luke Faraone <l...@faraone.cc> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Wade Brainerd <wad...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I for one will have a much easier time remembering what sugar-shell means, >> versus sugar-jarabe. >> Personally I can't stand all these meaningless names, I currently have to >> go look at the glossary each time I need to know which version of Sugar has >> the activities. >> >> At work I have often found that confusingly named packages tend to get >> adopted less easily than the sensibly named ones. >> > > Understandable. > > What I was planning to do (I've yet to consult with the other maintainers > on this) was to have "sugar" be a virtual package provided by > "sugar-sucrose", so all you'd need to do would be to "apt-get install sugar" > to get a fully-functioning sugar environment. It should be trivial to rename > sugar to sugar-shell in Debian. > > > -- > Luke Faraone > http://luke.faraone.cc >
_______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel