On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, Martin Albert wrote:
> Oh, no, not that again ...! ;-) Yet it must be. > > Christoph Egger on Friday 13 December 2002 21:24: > > Wann wird -rc5 ueberhaupt via aptget downloadbar? > > Packages are ready. I haven't uploaded, 'cause i don't like them yet. > All that strange names ... > > On Saturday 14 December 2002 02:35, Andreas Beck wrote: > > > 2. LibWMH is totally broken for me. This seems to be a binary > > > compatibility issue, as the demo runs fine. > > > > O.K. - got that one. Library name changed from libggiwmh to libwmh. > > > > I am usure what I prefer. However for compatibilty reasons I would > > suggest to place symlinks to emulate the old name libggiwmh for some > > time. > > No, this looks nice, i'm sure what i prefer! That's what i like. > > libggimisc already exists like that, source, binary and libname are > identical - that's the way to go! > > IMHO publishing these libs of yours with that generic names will not > work in the long run at least. > > So, why don't you just do _that_?: call it libggiwmh, libggiovl, ... > leaving gii and ggi itself like they are. Do it, i need one hour to > redo the packaging and off it goes ... :) Personally, I would prefer something like libggi_window_manager_hints.so, because I don't quite see the need for shortening the name. And this goes for all extensions: libggi_descriptive_name_of_the_extension.so. Currently, I have absolutely no idea what half of the acronyms stand for, and really, I don't think there's any need to use few characters. As far as I know, none of the OSs that libggi supports have stringent limits on the number of characters in the name and the amount of typing saved by shortening it is really minimal. On the other hand, I didn't write any of the extensions, so I shouln't be questioning authors' choices of names. -Filip
