On Wed, Apr 28, 1999 at 04:44:53PM -0400, Jonathan P Tomer wrote:
> > I can see how it would seem ugly the other way too. It really depends on
> > how you think. I'm glad to know I'm not the only one with thought
> > patterns that foo.package works better, even in a ls..
> >
> > Doesn't mean I expect we'll get it that way and it's not a huge problem
> > if we don't. =>
>
> well, joeyh isn't the only one who thinks package.foo is the prettier way
> either; imho it fits the general philosophy better. i basically think the
> most general thing should be the last component (you never see gz.txt.README
> do you?), and what the purpose of the file is seems to me more general than
> what package it works for. but as you said it's not at all a huge issue.
Yes, I'm certain the majority like it that way more. I was just noting
that I was glad to not be the only weird one out of the bunch. hehe
--
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org> Debian GNU/Linux developer
PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBE The Source Comes First!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Don't move or I'll fill you full of ... little bolts of yellow light."
-- Farscape
Attachment:
pgpIqOPLYyL2u.pgp
Description: PGP signature