On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 10:20 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote: > On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 09:12 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote: > > Matthias Clasen wrote: > > > > > The whole vendor prefix idea is inherently broken. > > > > It's a good notion in spirit (to avoid namespace collision), but to > > virtually force/mandate it's usage is silly, agreed. > > > > The problem with it is that there is no clear way to refer > to desktop files, other than by filename, and that breaks > if vendor prefixes change underneath us. I think the root issue is what does "vendor" mean in an open source context? We've been using to mean the packager, which seems to have been determined to be crackrock. If it means upstream, then upstream should have already properly supplied it in the package, and we shouldn't have to mess with it.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part