Wed, 18 May 2005 10:42:42 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
[ replying to a mail I got privatly by mistake I think ]
* Corsac <email@example.com> [050518 10:17]:
> > And why we shouldn't do such things, you can easily check, if you
> > search for usr/bin/Terminal in the allready available packages :
> We shouldnt change the name of the work of the upstream author, I think.
> And btw, xfce-guys seem to dont want any xf-name more.
Yes, we should try to keep changes as minimal as possible. No, we
shouldn't just copy them, if it would fit the needs of our users better,
if we do some small changes.
> > 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.
> In ubuntu (packages from universe, so os-works one I think), benny
> solved that with conflicting with terminal.
And why shouldn't I be allowed to have both packages installed? We run
here a computer pool for many different students, some use xfce4, some
use GNUstep. Why should I disallow anyone of them, to don't use the
terminal of their prefered desktop environment?
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-----