Re: Package name eMail or not?
Scripsit Millis Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] The upstream has since released a newer version under the GPL and has indicated to me a willingness to have the package called eMail. My question is if this change of capitalization acceptable to Debian, or would it still insist on a different package name? A package in Debian cannot be called eMail - package names must be all lower case (policy §5.6.6) Having a package called just email would be very confusing for our users. I suggest you qualify the package name with e.g. the author's name [given that the author seems obstinately unwilling to give his software a non-generic name] or something like that. -- Henning MakholmVi skal nok ikke begynde at undervise hinanden i den store regnekunst her, men jeg vil foreslå, at vi fra Kulturministeriets side sørger for at fremsende tallene og også give en beskrivelse af, hvordan man læser tallene. Tak for i dag!
Package name eMail or not?
There was some discussion [1] about an ITP I filed last year for a package called email [2], which suffered from an inappropriate license and name problems. The upstream has since released a newer version under the GPL and has indicated to me a willingness to have the package called eMail. My question is if this change of capitalization acceptable to Debian, or would it still insist on a different package name? It has been recently accepted into Cygwin with the email name [3] and upstream is, for that reason, not too keen to radically alter it. If eMail is not reasonable name, can anyone suggest one that is? Thanks, Millis [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/06/msg01651.html [2] http://email.cleancode.org/ [3] http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2004-10/msg00385.html -- Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org) Debian Project (http://www.debian.org)
