[Pkg-xfce-devel] xfce4-terminal

[Alexander Schmehl]

--/04w6evG8XlLl3ft
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi!

* Emanuele Rocca <ema@debian.org> [050518 00:12]:

> >  > However, I am not sure that we should supply a file with such a comm=
on=20
> >  > name as /usr/bin/Terminal. What's wrong with /usr/bin/xfce4-terminal?
[..]
> >  We should ship it as Terminal as well because upstream do.

No, we should ship it by a name our user will easy to find, and which
doesn't collide with other Files.

I for one wouldn't think an xfce4-terminal would be called /usr/bin/Terminal
(because I know, many other programms exist).


> 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.
>=20
> 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
> not). ;P

And why we shouldn't do such things, you can easily check, if you
search for usr/bin/Terminal in the allready available packages [1]:

But in any case, we are to late, "terminal - a Terminal Emulator for
GNUstep" already has a /usr/bin/Terminal, that would mean, that you
couldn't install both, xfce4-terminal and this GNUstep terminal, which
did the same failure we are going to do.


Yours sincerely,
  Alexander


Links:
  1: http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_contents.pl?word=3Dusr%2Fbin=
%2FTerminal&searchmode=3Dsearchfiles&case=3Dinsensitive&version=3Dunstable&=
arch=3Di386

--/04w6evG8XlLl3ft
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCivijBxd04ADYzRYRAqzfAJ92QsEzuYmvpYqxjc1aPuPGdetsKACeIr45
O9u1EVmNU6hleA92/8EoMiA=
=MbUd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--/04w6evG8XlLl3ft--