Archive talk:Common package names packaging guideline draft
Changes to make from FPC meeting:
(09:35:04 AM) spot: What about if we change the first line from: "It is bad practice for a package to use a name that could conflict with other utilities. For instance, "trash" is a bad name to choose because it is so generic that other packages could easily pick the same name." to simply "It is bad practice for a package to use a name that is likely to conflict with other utilities." (09:35:31 AM) abadger1999: That change is fine with me. (09:35:40 AM) spot: take generic out of the picture, and change it to the likelyhood of conflict (09:35:52 AM) tibbs: Yes, that makes sense. (09:36:55 AM) tibbs: Also, this skirts the hard issue. The package name is easy; things like executables aren't so easy. (09:36:57 AM) Rathann: <nod> (09:37:25 AM) nicubunu left the room (quit: Remote closed the connection). (09:37:43 AM) fbijlsma [n=fbijlsma@p54B2CAFE.dip.t-dialin.net] entered the room. (09:38:58 AM) abadger1999: True... the executables would have to be renamed as well. (09:39:07 AM) abadger1999: Maybe should add that explicitly in there. (09:39:23 AM) spot: I think if we're going to go this far, we should. (09:39:42 AM) themayor_ [email@example.com] entered the room. (09:39:43 AM) spot: but that probably belongs in the Packaging:Conflicts section (09:39:47 AM) spot: not the naming section (09:40:14 AM) tibbs: Indeed. So do we want to table this until we can do the whole thing, or do we want to vote on just this part first? (09:40:17 AM) abadger1999: Right. We probably want this in the Conflict Guideline with a link to it from the Naming section if we do that.