On 31/08/2007, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 12:17:44PM +0200, Jindrich Novy wrote: > > How about removing the prefix completely? Package description should be > > sufficient to figure out it ships a TeX related stuff and we don't have many of > > them currently. I see the only purpose of the prefix to avoid conficts with > > already existing packages, in that case (la)tex-* or suffix *-(la)tex is ok IMO. > > You'd have my vote for that. I find the overprefixing a bit > silly - next we'll have C-glibc. Prefixing should be used for > resolving ambiguous situations, not as a replacement for the Groups: > tag. > > Oh yes, the subject is just to catch reading eyes. Thing is, (la)tex add on packages are frequently named with rather generic names, and so there is a very real world need for a prefix, I would argue.... eg. preview, prosper, unicode, bytefield (all current tetex add-ons)... I could imagine other programs chosing these names too. It seems to be a fact that programmers lack originality in naming :) -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
