[pkg-GNUstep-maintainers] Re: GNUStep namespace pollution in Debian?

[Eric Heintzmann]

> 
> Which, imho, is a bit strange. The "binary" namespace is a scarciest 
> resource 
> than package name, so if the binary names are ok, it's kinda strange 
> to want 
> to rename packages. And of course the "binary" namespace is only 
> polluted 
> because debian add scripts to call GNUstep apps (while normally 
> you'll use 
> open or openapp).

The package names are very important because this is what you see 
first when installing packages.
Since GNUstep doesn't install apps in standard places, there is no 
binary namespace pollution from upstream apps and thus no need to 
rename them.
The debian-specific wrapper scripts names are currently depending of 
the package name, so if package are renamed, the scripts too...

> 
> But well, their point of view is nonetheless understandable, it's 
> also normal 
> that they want to reserve general names like terminal or preferences 
> for 
> meta-packages. And if they want to rename theses packages as 
> backbone-preferences or backbone-terminal, I don't find it shocking, 
> as 
> preferences, terminal or textedit are parts of backbone.
> 

I already posted something about that to others GNUstep Debian 
maintainers yesterday.
I think this is interresting because it would increase the visibility 
of backbone and stepmaker (connect) and imageapps (camera, viewpdf, 
imagekits, preview).
But it would not solve all the problem:
some apps are not part of any project.

> What I find a bit curious is to want to package every gnustep apps 
> with 
> gnustep-* (or even stupider, gnustep-client-*) and not wanting to do 
> that for 
> kde, gnome, qt, gtk, fox, etc. It's not like *all* non-gnustep apps 
> begins 
> with a K or a G, some KDE/GNOME apps have quite general names as 
> well. And 
> some GNUstep apps doesn't have descriptive names, so what will you do 
> ? 
> Package them anyway as gnustep-appname ?

If we can't find a better solution, I think we will do that.

> A better solution imho would be to add ".app" to GNUstep apps names 
> rather 
> than prefixing with gnustep- .


Well, this solution doen't satisfy everyone and doesn't solve the 
naming problem on frameworks (like netclasses) and libs.

More info about this issue:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/03/msg01442.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/04/msg04784.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/04/msg04793.html

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=241616
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=241622
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=241623
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=241618
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=241624
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=241614
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=241619
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=241617
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=241612
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=241615
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=241613