Wed, 18 May 2005 00:12:52 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
* Simon Huggins <firstname.lastname@example.org>, [2005-05-17 22:28 +0100]:
> On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 08:46:46PM +0200, Emanuele Rocca wrote:
> > However, I am not sure that we should supply a file with such a common=
> > name as /usr/bin/Terminal. What's wrong with /usr/bin/xfce4-terminal?
> I thought we'd already done this on IRC?
Yeah, I remember the discussion but I somehow managed to forget the=20
> We should ship it as Terminal as well because upstream do.
Mmmh, I am not 100% convinced.
It is not necessary to respect each and every upstream decision,=20
especially when there is the possibility to invade others' namespaces.
BTW: we could check if there are similar situations in Debian already
and then choose how to proceed.
(Not really sure if the 'already' in the above sentence is misplaced or
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----