Benjamin Drung <bdr...@ubuntu.com> writes: > Am Montag, den 26.04.2010, 11:07 +0200 schrieb Stefano Zacchiroli: >> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:39:39AM +0200, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote: >> > > I'd rather say that generally binary packages split words at '-', so if >> > > you've a choice among these two the latter is preferable. >> > >> > If this is so, then browserplugin-* should content everyone. >> >> I'm sure you meant "browser-plugin-*" here ... > > Hm, browserplugin-* would be a new option. Then we would have > > 1. browser-plugin-* > 2. browserplugin-* > 3. *-browserplugin > 4. *-browser-plugin > > I think all of these would work (with a slight preference to 1. or 2.). > > Opinions?
I think *-bwoser[-]plugin is a bad choice for 2 reasons (which you can consider one reason): A) apt-get install browser<tab><tab> This will complete nicely to give me a list of plugins with options 1 and 2 and all the packages it completes have a common use case, to make my browser better. No such thing with options 3 and 4. B) Sorting in frontends (aptitude, ...) Again say you are looking for usefull plugins to add to your browser. With options 1 and 2 you get all the plugins in one blog and can easily scroll through them. With options 3 and 4 they will be scattered all over the place. I think the seperate groups formed by a common prefix in options 3 and 4 would be much smaller and less usefull to users than having all browser plugins in one block. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87tyqyxc9q....@frosties.localdomain
