Re: [pkg-GNUstep-maintainers] Re: GNUStep namespace pollution in Debian?

[Eric Heintzmann]

On 2004-06-14 18:15:16 +0200 Evan Prodromou <evan@debian.org> wrote:

> > > > > > "EH" == Eric Heintzmann <eric@gnustep.fr.st> writes:
>
>     EH> In fact terminal could be used by virtual packages (For
>     EH> example Terminal.app, xterm, kterm could provide terminal
>     EH> virtual package) and /usr/bin/terminal could be used by debian
>     EH> alternative.
>
> Could be, but won't. There's already a virtual package to do that
> ('x-terminal-emulator').
>
> Anyways, on the naming front, for Debian, let's do this:
>
>       - GNUstep core packages (only!) are named 'gnustep-*'.
What about gnustep-examples, gnustep-icons, meta-gnustep, 
gnustep-antlr, gnustep-dl2, gnustep-gd ... ?
>       - Application package are named 'appname.app', since that's a
>         frequent term used in the *step world. (We often say
>         So Debian package 'terminal' becomes 'terminal.app'.
If everybody is agree, that's okay for me.

>       - Kits just keep their regular names, but with *-dev, *-dbg,
>         etc. like other shared libraries.

In fact, it's not possible to apply the Debian Policy for libs on 
frameworks.
In the past, Nicola Pero have sugested to see framework as plugins not 
libs.
Is someone knows some Debian docs about plugins ? (But it won't solve 
this issue).

Eric