From: ES <ruby-ml@...>
Date: 2005-06-06T05:19:24+09:00
Subject: Re: Package, a future replacement for setup.rb and mkmf.rb


Le 5/6/2005, "Christian Neukirchen" <chneukirchen@gmail.com> a �crit:
>ES <ruby-ml@magical-cat.org> writes:
>
>> Le 5/6/2005, "Christian Neukirchen" <chneukirchen@gmail.com> a �crit:
>>>ES <ruby-ml@magical-cat.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> Le 4/6/2005, "Christian Neukirchen" <chneukirchen@gmail.com> a �crit:
>>
>> Re: naming. Since 'Package', as mentioned, may be ever so slightly
>> misleading, perhaps call it 'Kit' or something? If you want to get
>> fancier, my pick for my own package manager (whenever I got around
>> to it) was 'Oblong' (extra points for the reference).
>
>While I agree that Package is not a perfect name, Kit isn't better IMO.
>It should be a word where everyone can imagine what it is... but there
>is no concept of a "kit" in Ruby.
>
>Still looking for alternatives...

Seeing as Aoki-san combined his efforts to setup.rb,
'Install' or 'Installer' would be available.

I personally do not think 'Package' is a bad name (because that is
what it is), but it may cause confusion since the existing package
_managers_ are ambiguously named. Perhaps you should just brave
those waters and go with it.

A less-bureaucratic and more-dastardly pet name could of course
come in handy. That, or a cute logo (which is known to drastically
improve the quality of software).

>> E
>-- 
>Christian Neukirchen 

E

--
template<typename duck>
void quack(duck& d) { d.quack(); }