On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 10:31:13AM +0000, Colin Watson wrote: > On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 07:44:24PM +0000, Shane Fagan wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 11:38 -0800, Rick Spencer wrote: > > > Does "/opt/ubuntu/" perhaps suggest a bit of "officialness" or support > > > from the Ubuntu community, whereas these apps are specifically *not* > > > suppose to have such a connotation? > > Yeah I get what Rick is saying here. Does using /opt/ubuntu imply that > > these apps are officially supported in some capacity? I think it does a > > little, id say /opt/extra is a better option. > We don't own the /opt namespace, so "extra" is far too general. See > http://www.lanana.org/lsbreg/providers/providers.txt for the kinds of > names that are suitable there. > > "ubuntu-extras" would be fine, I imagine, and connotes exactly as much > support as "extras.ubuntu.com" does.
FWIW (and I didn't see this raised in this thread) FQDNs do not need to be registered with the LANANA and can be used instead of a registered string (see [1]). So if you distribute the packages through extras.ubuntu.com anyway, it might make sense to reuse the same name here. Kind regards Philipp Kern [1] http://www.lanana.org/lsbreg/providers/index.html
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel