On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 05:15:30PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote: > There's more to a package name than just being a key to tools. It is > the name by which one remembers the software, even when he or she > doesn't really know it; it is the name one uses when asking a friend > (or Dr. Google) about it.
Do you realize that you just argued in favor of naming this CDDB? This _is_ the name of this, ehem... bundle. Go argue with upstream if you don't like their naming convetions. I certainly don't like krap, it sickens me, but I manage to ignore it. > > So this nameing discussion is about what package data should be > > mangled into the package name, in this case especially what > > dependency data. > > You wanted the discussion to be more general - then please > acknowledge that it is not only, or even mainly, about dependencies. > I have learned that I don't need to activate some GNUstep desktop to > use cddb.bundle or terminal.app, so this is no reason to prepend > "gnustep-". For me the easiest method for finding some piece of software for GNOME is this: $ grep-available -s Package -F Depends gtk2 -a -F Description mail Package: rubrica Package: gnome-pilot-conduits Package: gnubiff ... which _is_ about dependencies. What you keep arguing about is something that is better solved at the UI level. > There are more reasons, among them the wish to have names that can > easily be recognized and memorized, and the wish to have a name that, > if it isn't unique, at least makes it possible to distinguish the > program from others: Not only in a technical sense, but in human > language. Yes, that's fine and that's what .app and .bundle are for. Marcelo
