Re: One small thing about application names.... :)

[oberhage]

Jeff Teunissen <deek@d2dc.net> wrote:
: oberhage@uni-essen.de wrote:

: .app is just the extension -- calling something MyName.app is silly and
: confusing, because it's mixing up the app's name with its on-disk
: filename.

Yes, .app (or .debug etc.) ist 'just' the applications extension. I were,
however, speaking about the packages(!) name. There an application stays
an application, regardless if it is compiled for production ...

: Does "Terminal.app" change its name to "Terminal.debug" when you build it
: with debugging activated? No, only its filename changes. Both internally
: and externally, the application name is "Terminal". That's the name you
: use when you launch it (though openapp confuses the issue too -- one
: reason I never use openapp, preferring "open -a AppName", where open is a
: script that execs gopen with stderr redirected to /dev/null).

... or for debugging purposes.

Again: We should have something that makes installation-packages(!!!)
for GNUstep stand out from other ones and that also shows up in that
packages name easily and with as little risk to be used for other
purposes as possible.

We may have several such things as e.g. .app for application-packages,
.framework for such things, should they arrive :-) etc.

But with Terminal_0.9.3_app_i386.deb (and something similar for RPMs)
I would easily now, that this package contains an application suitable
for GNUstep.

If someone has a better idear, be my guest, you're welcome

Greetings,
 Ruediger Oberhage