Re: GNUStep namespace pollution in Debian?

[Evan Prodromou]

>>>>> "AP" == Alex Perez <aperez@student.santarosa.edu> writes:

    AP> That is not an acceptable naming convention because many
    AP> GNUstep apps are not part of the gnustep project. Prefixing
    AP> the package name of those apps with gnustep- leads one to
    AP> believe (reasonably) that they are part of the GNUstep project
    AP> when they are not. This is why, although I strongly dislike
    AP> both because I think this is a complete non-issue that a
    AP> couple of people have chosen to crusade over, .app is better
    AP> for applications.

Alex,

Let me say that I agree with you ONE HUNDRED PERCENT about the total
ridiculousness of this campaign. It's predicated on some really stupid
ideas of competition between Free Software projects -- that GNUstep
packages are squatting on prime namespace real estate in order to get
a leg up on the competition.

That said, it just won't go away. So, I think a strategic retreat is
in order.

Let's just say:

      - gnustep-* for packages that are part of GNUstep, or which have
        "GNUstep" in the name anyways.
      - *.app for application packages
      - *.framework for frameworks

Does that work for everyone? Eric, can we write it up as a
package-naming policy and ship it with gnustep-base or -make or
something?

~ESP

-- 
Evan Prodromou
Email: evan@debian.org
Jabber: evan@jabber.debian.net