[Pkg-xfce-devel] xfce4-terminal

[Emanuele Rocca]

--d6Gm4EdcadzBjdND
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello,

* Simon Huggins <huggie@earth.li>, [2005-05-18 16:04 +0100]:
>  On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 04:23:12PM +0200, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
>  > * Simon Huggins <huggie@earth.li> [050518 15:52]:
>  > > I think we should conflict and use Terminal (as well as xfce4-termin=
al
>  > > if you like).
>  > Again, please explain me, why you need to conflict with that package,
>  > when it is perfectly possible to have both packages installed, and
>  > even run both terminals at the same time?
> =20
>  Ok.
> =20
>  If we want it to be usr/bin/Terminal then:
>  	- either we conflict

Other people can easily add Conflicts or whatever they want to their
debs; we cannot, because we are providing *official* packages for=20
Debian. And I don't think it is acceptable to force our users to keep=20
*only* the GNUStep Terminal or the Xfce one when there are *no technical
reasons* leading to mutual exclusion (also if I don't want to believe=20
that there is someone actually using GNUStep). ;)

>  	- or we use dpkg-divert which is a bit evil and hard to ensure
>  	  you do correctly in all upgrade/downgrade/removal cases.
>  	  Also I believe this means you need cooperation from the
>  	  terminal package.

I don't like this solution too.

>  If we don't want it to be Terminal:
>  	- we will have more confused users

True, but we've also got to remember that Debian users can be confused=20
by 'yet another bin/term*'. This is why I said  that there are 30+=20
terminals in Debian yet some mails ago.

To avoid users' confusion we've got: the alternative system, xfterm4,=20
x-terminal-emulator. As a general note: I want to believe that Debian=20
users are smart enough to understand that calling a binary for a
terminal emulator 'Terminal' is not a good idea. :)

>  	- upstream docs will conflict with our setup

For what concerns the documentation we can provide a modified=20
xfce4-terminal(1) man page explaining our reasons for the change, or=20
state them in README.Debian.

>  I would prefer Terminal.

I would prefer xfce4-terminal. :P

Keep always in mind that one of our duties is the integration of
upstream software in Debian, which is quite a complex environment.
We must do our best to coninvce upstream authors to choose reasonable
names and to avoid ambiguity.

But if we fail, I think that we've got to walk a different road.
(See Alexander's example about mc)

BTW: I guess that now it's  very clear which is the result of choosing=20
these kind of absolutely generic names. You force packagers to lose=20
their time on things which are not very interesting, and you cause=20
a big amount of confusion. Grrr.

ciao,=09
	ema

P.S.
Please always try to be as peaceful as possible; however, as a=20
non-native english speaker I perfectly understand that is not always
easy to be clear. Is this sentence clear? :)

--d6Gm4EdcadzBjdND
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCi45SC6DuA+rxm2ARAu8PAJ9tE2NEJJL+jf+O9ZfhfXhWXSHD8QCfc4VE
Bnhu3crIOC5sNpAw1w2Ocok=
=Vm03
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--d6Gm4EdcadzBjdND--