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

[Pierre Neidhardt <mail@ambrevar.xyz>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1679 bytes --]

Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me@tobias.gr> writes:

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

This could be a very nice idea!

> 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.

Users who cannot touch-type will typically perform simple queries, such as:

- battle wesnoth
- wesnoth battle
- battle
- wesnoth

(Using Emacs-Guix.el, Helm, or the next GTK interface.)

With "wesnoth" as a name, 3 out 4 queries won't hit a result.

I don't think that "typing" is the issue here.  At least, I wouldn't
sacrifice the _ability to search_ just to type short names.

Also an option is to alias package names.


> XLong names take longer to type on the command line, and noisy to 
> read in code.

Noisy?  Why?  Short code filled with acronyms tends to be harder to read
then long explicit names.

Package names are mostly used as inputs.  In those longs package lists,
it's really nice to have explicit names and leave little room for ambiguity.

> Some hinder tab-completion.  

Why? 

> 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.

Absolutely.

-- 
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]