That sounds good to me.<div><br></div><div>I realize the whole sucrose / fructose / starch thing has become a consensus but to me, not really knowing the scientific relationships between those words, they might as well have been named sugar-layer-0, sugar-layer-1, etc.<br> <br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>Wade</div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Luke Faraone <span dir="ltr"><luke@faraone.cc></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"> <div class="gmail_quote"><div class="Ih2E3d">On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Wade Brainerd <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:wadetb@gmail.com" target="_blank">wadetb@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex"> I for one will have a much easier time remembering what sugar-shell means, versus sugar-jarabe.  <div><br></div><div>Personally I can't stand all these meaningless names, I currently have to go look at the glossary each time I need to know which version of Sugar has the activities.  </div> <div><br></div><div>At work I have often found that confusingly named packages tend to get adopted less easily than the sensibly named ones.</div></blockquote></div><div><br>Understandable. <br><br>What I was planning to do (I've yet to consult with the other maintainers on this) was to have "sugar" be a virtual package provided by "sugar-sucrose", so all you'd need to do would be to "apt-get install sugar" to get a fully-functioning sugar environment. It should be trivial to rename sugar to sugar-shell in Debian. <br> </div></div><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Luke Faraone<br><a href="http://luke.faraone.cc" target="_blank">http://luke.faraone.cc</a><br> </div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>