What to do about libc-client (imap)?
Rex Dieter
rdieter at math.unl.edu
Mon Sep 20 12:05:52 UTC 2004
Kenneth Porter wrote:
> --On Sunday, September 19, 2004 6:34 PM -1000 Warren Togami
> <wtogami at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Proposed Option #1: Rename libc-client to imap-libs
>
>
> Any reason not to call it uwimap-libs? Why should it get premier naming
> as implementor of IMAP? (I realize it's a reference implementation of
> the protocol by the protocol's author, but we don't call BIND "dns".)
Possibly some legacy apps expect it to be named imap (which is what it
has historically been named). Besides, IMO, packages should be called
by their upstream name/tarball whenever possible, unless there is good
reason to do otherwise. Recent examples raised (including yours)
validates this:
apache: As of 2.0, it's tarball is httpd (and for licensing reasons too
,I believe, Fedora Core can't use the name "apache").
bind: bind is and always has been called "bind".
If there is confusion over the name, then I'd be inclined to name it
uw-imap possibly.
-- Rex
More information about the devel
mailing list