Re: choosing a package name

On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Corrin Lakeland wrote: > I'm packaging gnubg (gnu backgammon program). I'm a bit worried that this > name is too short and I should call it gnubackgammon or something. Why do you think this name is too short? There are even many packages that have names with only 2 or 3 lette

choosing a package name

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I'm packaging gnubg (gnu backgammon program). I'm a bit worried that this name is too short and I should call it gnubackgammon or something. I asked upstream and they said: > Personally I have a slight preference for gnubg for consistency, but I >

Re: choosing a package name

On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Corrin Lakeland wrote: > I'm packaging gnubg (gnu backgammon program). I'm a bit worried that this > name is too short and I should call it gnubackgammon or something. Why do you think this name is too short? There are even many packages that have names with only 2 or 3 lett

choosing a package name

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I'm packaging gnubg (gnu backgammon program). I'm a bit worried that this name is too short and I should call it gnubackgammon or something. I asked upstream and they said: > Personally I have a slight preference for gnubg for consistency, but I >