Slackware, Arch, FreeBSD, NetBSD, Lunar, Crux, Gentoo, and LFS use the name normalize for this package, and we also almost always stay with the name the upstream authors chose. As well as normally leaving the executable name alone, except for when we add a version number to one so it will not conflict with another package, like gqview1 or gqview2. Most of the TC repo is that way. And the SCM repo is independent from the TCZ one anyway, there are differently named packages in it depending on the package's features. This allows room for more than one version of a package, like xine-xvesa-i486 and xine-xvesa-i686.
I guess the larger question is to we want to impose the Debian naming convention on the repos here that are built from source. And do we want the SCM area to have to have the same package names as the TCZ one for those packages in the TCZ area that follow either Debian or another naming convention besides what the upstream author chose. We do have the import tool making use of Debian packages, and I am not against Debian in any way. But I think as for our own source built repo most folks would prefer the freedom to use the upstream package names or other names like we always have done in the past.
I will think more on it, and I would like to hear what others say on this subject.