Wed, 18 May 2005 14:17:45 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
* Simon Huggins <firstname.lastname@example.org>, [2005-05-18 11:21 +0100]:
> On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 10:11:15AM +0200, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
> > 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".
No, we're not odd.=20
It's called xfce4-terminal in Debian because we've got...
$ apt-cache search --names-only terminal | wc -l
32 packages with the word 'terminal' in the short description (31 if you
don't consider xfce4-terminal).
> > 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.
But it's wrong, considering that it is perfectly reasonable to run both
GNUstep and Xfce on the same machine. Isn't it?=20
> 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.
One could object that they're not very respectful in first instance if=20
they don't care about your suggestions.
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-----