On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Daniel Reed wrote: > On 2003-10-29T09:56-0800, Peter A. Castro wrote: > ) http://www.fruitbat.org/Cygwin/suite3270/suite3270-c3270-3.2.20-1.tar.bz2 > ) http://www.fruitbat.org/Cygwin/suite3270/suite3270-pr3287-3.2.20-1.tar.bz2 > ) http://www.fruitbat.org/Cygwin/suite3270/suite3270-s3270-3.2.20-1.tar.bz2 > ) http://www.fruitbat.org/Cygwin/suite3270/suite3270-tcl3270-3.2.20-1.tar.bz2 > ) http://www.fruitbat.org/Cygwin/suite3270/suite3270-x3270-3.2.20-1.tar.bz2 > > I think at least one suggestion was to fill out the individual names more, > as in suite3270-curses instead of suite3270-c3270.
I don't really feel that would be in the best interests of the products. See, this is a collection of individual emulators (never mind they are developed together by Paul :), and as such are not dependent on each other, nor are they strictly bundled together (I've just choosen to port them all together). They are already well known by their current names (ie: c3270, x3270, etc). Changing their package names would tend to obscure their original names and thus might be confusing to those who already know the names (not to mention it would greatly increase the total length of the package names). I'm not really in favor of really-long-and-verbose-package-names. I've always felt that a short, simple name is easier to remember, let alone say or type or search for. Besides, the description of a package (in the setup.hint) is where verboseness belongs, not in the product name itself (we aren't striving for ISO-9000 compliance here :), and the package descriptions do adequately describe each product (ummm... don't they?). So, does that make sense, or have I been sniffing glue? -- Peter A. Castro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> or <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Cats are just autistic Dogs" -- Dr. Tony Attwood