Wed, 18 May 2005 10:11:15 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
* Emanuele Rocca <firstname.lastname@example.org> [050518 00:12]:
> > > However, I am not sure that we should supply a file with such a comm=
> > > 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.
> 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 :
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.
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----