On 31/08/2007, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm(a)atrpms.net> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 12:17:44PM +0200, Jindrich Novy wrote:
> How about removing the prefix completely? Package description should be
> sufficient to figure out it ships a TeX related stuff and we don't have many of
> them currently. I see the only purpose of the prefix to avoid conficts with
> already existing packages, in that case (la)tex-* or suffix *-(la)tex is ok IMO.
You'd have my vote for that. I find the overprefixing a bit
silly - next we'll have C-glibc. Prefixing should be used for
resolving ambiguous situations, not as a replacement for the Groups:
Oh yes, the subject is just to catch reading eyes.
Thing is, (la)tex add on packages are frequently named with rather
generic names, and so there is a very real world need for a prefix, I
would argue.... eg. preview, prosper, unicode, bytefield (all current
tetex add-ons)... I could imagine other programs chosing these names
too. It seems to be a fact that programmers lack originality in naming