Wed, 18 May 2005 11:21:09 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 10:11:15AM +0200, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
> * Emanuele Rocca <email@example.com> [050518 00:12]:
> > > > However, I am not sure that we should supply a file with such a co=
> > > > name as /usr/bin/Terminal. What's wrong with /usr/bin/xfce4-termin=
> > > 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).
Right but if you go on IRC then they'll tell you it's called Terminal.
I don't really want to get into "It's called Terminal except on Debian
because they're odd".
What did benny do in his XFLD package?
Ah he conflicted with terminal and shipped usr/bin/Terminal.
> 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.
Well we could always conflict against it.
I think it's a stupid upstream name. I tried to persuade benny of this
before when he was about but he didn't really listen then and to some
extent I think you have to respect upstream's wishes.
"When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at
all." -- God, Godfellas, Futurama
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----