Re: GNUStep namespace pollution in Debian?

[Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf]

Eric Heintzmann <eric@gnustep.fr.st> wrote on 14.06.2004 18:08:22:

> On 2004-06-13 21:47:41 +0200 Alex Perez <aperez@student.santarosa.edu> 
> wrote:
> 
> > Adam Fedor wrote:
> > 
> >> 
> >> On Jun 12, 2004, at 9:58 AM, Nicolas Roard wrote:
> >> 
> >>> 
> >>> A better solution imho would be to add ".app" to GNUstep apps names 
> >>> rather 
> >>> than prefixing with gnustep- .
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> It would be nice if it were consistent, and perhaps even more 
> >> advertising 
> >> for us, since people would see a bunch of packages with .app or -gs 
> >> or 
> >> something, and either wonder what they were of know they were 
> >> GNUstep apps.
> > 
> > Noting that I think this whole issue is ridiculous, I vote for .app 
> > and not 
> > gnustep- or gnustep-client or gs- or anything crazy like that.
> If we choose .app , we need something else for framework (at least).

*.framework , this is at least the way for framework naming on Mac OS X.

But since (at least how I understand it) the name in question is just the 
name in the packaging/port system and not the actual name of the installed 
binary I think gnustep-* is o.k.

> 
> Eric
> > 

Regards, Lars

>