Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I looked through the output of 'dpkg -l' on one of my systems and
> > > saw very few packages with plain English names.
> >
> > And this is significant because ... ?
>
> Because it demonstrates that most people thing plain English
> names are too g
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I looked through the output of 'dpkg -l' on one of my systems and
> > > saw very few packages with plain English names.
> >
> > And this is significant because ... ?
>
> Because it demonstrates that most people thing plain English
> names are too
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OK, so call it water-demo or waterdemo or something along those lines.
> I looked through the output of 'dpkg -l' on one of my systems and
> saw very few packages with plain English names.
And this is significant because ... ?
-Miles
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OK, so call it water-demo or waterdemo or something along those lines.
> I looked through the output of 'dpkg -l' on one of my systems and
> saw very few packages with plain English names.
And this is significant because ... ?
-Miles
--
To UNSUBSC
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
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
Josh Huber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Another comment...perhaps you should change the name? water seems
> very generic...maybe it's just me.
I disagree; `water' seems like a great name.
If it were a word that referred to common activity, then it might be
considered too generic, but it's not.
Josh Huber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Another comment...perhaps you should change the name? water seems
> very generic...maybe it's just me.
I disagree; `water' seems like a great name.
If it were a word that referred to common activity, then it might be
considered too generic, but it's not.
8 matches
Mail list logo