Hello, On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 04:32:46PM +0100, Pierre Neidhardt wrote: > Sorry, I misunderstood the conclusion of the discussion: I thought that > we would simply follow the package naming convention as per the manual.
I am confused about this statement. The naming convention speaks a bit vaguely of "project name chosen upstream"; very often, this means the tarball name. Now there is www.wesnoth.org, which distributes tarballs and executable files called wesnoth.*. So I would argue that the upstream name is "wesnoth" and would suggest to revert this change. This is in a similar spirit to "gcc" for instance; we do not call it "gnu-compiler-collection" either, although this is the long name used on their project web page. Andreas
