On 5 May 2019 16:48, "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" <pelzflor...@pelzflorian.de> wrote: > > On Sun, May 05, 2019 at 03:23:27PM -0400, Raghav Gururajan wrote: > > On 5 May 2019 14:52, "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" > > <pelzflor...@pelzflorian.de> wrote: > > > Well, they have two names and others frequently refer to them by > > > e.g. Epiphany and not GNOME Web, including Epiphany developers. > > > > > > > > > > Hmm, but the app shows up as Web in GNOME. > > >
> One example of GNOME Web being called Epiphany by GNOME developers is > the same blog: > > https://blogs.gnome.org/mcatanzaro/2019/03/19/epiphany-technology-preview-upgrade-requires-manual-intervention/ > > > You can also type both Epiphany and (your language’s translation of) > Web in the GNOME Activities search bar to find Epiphany. The same > goes for Nautilus. The terminal command is also still epiphany or > nautilus. > > I do not know if it is possible to give a package two names; I believe > it is not. I understand what you are saying. It appears epiphany is the old name (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNOME_Web). Dev must have used epiphany now a days as a habit. Also, the previous blog link you sent me, recommends to use generic names. > > > > > > Of course, there are more non-packaged applications. > > > > > > I also remember > > > https://blogs.gnome.org/mcatanzaro/2016/09/21/gnome-3-22-core-apps/ > > > who says, for example, that gnome-tweaks is *not* core. > > > > > > > What?? How else to enable/disable plugins/extensions in GNOME? > > > > Well… GNOME has repeatedly tried to make simpler alternatives for > installing extensions. I believe the current method is GNOME > Software, but I am not sure. > > Regards, > Florian