Andreas Enge writes: > Hello, > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 04:32:46PM +0100, Pierre Neidhardt wrote: >> Sorry, I misunderstood the conclusion of the discussion: I thought that >> we would simply follow the package naming convention as per the manual. > > I am confused about this statement. The naming convention speaks a bit > vaguely of "project name chosen upstream"; very often, this means the > tarball name. Now there is www.wesnoth.org, which distributes tarballs and > executable files called wesnoth.*. So I would argue that the upstream > name is "wesnoth" and would suggest to revert this change. I personally don't find the term "project name" vague, I think it refers to something very specific. In particular, in my understanding the term "project name" was chosen to emphasize that it's not the tarball name (or the domain name). > This is in a similar spirit to "gcc" for instance; we do not call it > "gnu-compiler-collection" either, although this is the long name used > on their project web page. Well, actually why not? :) This would be more consistent, make more sense and be more newbie friendly, something that acronyms never are. ("gcc" could be in the synopsis or the description.) -- Pierre Neidhardt https://ambrevar.xyz/