| 1 |
On 02/23/2014 05:02 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 17:33:57 +0000 (UTC) |
| 3 |
> Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> Tom Wijsman posted on Sat, 22 Feb 2014 18:08:24 +0100 as excerpted: |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>>>> That seems a little on the small side? Can we just do a single |
| 8 |
>>>> category for all of it, instead? People can go bikeshed on the |
| 9 |
>>>> name. |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>>> TL;DR: Yes, we could try that; but what would be a consistent name? |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> mate-desktop ? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> While still inconsistent with what already exists, that indeed sounds |
| 16 |
> sane towards the user, +1; does someone object 'mate-desktop'? |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
>> (The mate-base and mate-extra split seems more consistent with the |
| 19 |
>> rest of the tree to me, and around a dozen packages each seems fine, |
| 20 |
>> but if it's to be a single category, mate-desktop seems reasonable. |
| 21 |
>> Or desktop- mate, or mate-dt...) |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> (Or do we want a consistent 'mate-base' / 'mate-extra' approach?) |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
I personally prefer the base/extra approach for consistency and |
| 26 |
segregation reasons. |
Archives