Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I disagree. The policy is to avoid namespace polution, which means > that package names should be as specific as possible. Imagine if > the first 26 packages were named a through z, just because they > could be and they were first come first served?
I wrote: > > If it were a word that referred to common activity, then it might be > > considered too generic, but it's not. The point being that there has to be *some* point at which you stop trying to be more specific in a package name, and when a name is unlikely to cause conflict in the future, the maintainer has more freedom in choosing that point. If the program is called `water' then it's perfectly fine to call the package `water'. [The suggested alternative `sdlwater' is completely wrong, since it simply adds an arbitrary implementation detail to the name -- something which may be useful in *disambiguating* a package when there are conflicts and no better disambiguating features, but which is pointlessly specific in this case, where there are no conflicts!] -Miles
