Re: 05/15: gnu: wesnoth: Rename package to the-battle-for-wesnoth.

[Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me@tobias.gr>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1813 bytes --]

swedebugia, Guix,

TL;DR: we're missing a field like ‘DISPLAY-NAME’, and all this is 
just hacking around the bush.

swedebugia wrote:
> Anyone else who have opinions on the matter of acronyms in names 
> where they can be avoided?

I share your aversion to acronyms and senseless abbreviation — I 
just had to type ‘extra-config’ and it made me wince — but that's 
not the point here.

> Good useability is important and cryptic acronyms are not 
> something to expose to the user if possible to avoid IMO.

You're equating your preferred naming style to usability (an 
assertion I reject) and arguing that those sceptical of the former 
oppose the latter.  This is not true.

> Maybe this is where we need to discuss what our target audience 
> is? Nerds only?
> Random Joe who is new to GNU systems but dead tired of the 
> proprietary systems he was taught in school who heard og Guix 
> through a good friend who helps him getting started?

Using this logic, I counter that these very long names unfairly 
privilege 1337 hackers who can touch-type, and hurt the average 
Jo' poking at their chiclet keyboard with a chopstick ;-)

Both arguments make about as much sense IMO (and caricature 
users).  I think a name like ‘the-battle-for-wesnoth’ helps 
*neither* user.

XLong names take longer to type on the command line, and noisy to 
read in code.  Some hinder tab-completion.  Any implication above 
that they are ‘usable’ at all is doubtful to me.

In a GUI, they still look ugly: why no spaces?  Why lowercase? 
Why bother?  We don't have to choose between POLA from other 
command-line package managers and providing pretty metadata for 
higher-level UIs.  We can do both.

…but let's find consensus first ;-)

Kind regards,

T G-R

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]