Hi Simon, On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 01:53:41 +0200 Simon Cross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/16/07, Ricardo Mones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > By the way, the voices in my head tell me not to change package names > > just for fun ;-) > > Look, this clearly violates the principle of least surprise (the game > doesn't even have a Wikipedia page; the browser is GNOME's browser). > If you're going to argue with this, please try raise some sort of > counter point rather than flippantly stating the opposite opinion. All epiphany users could raise the same principle you're referring: the game it's called Epiphany so the package should be named epiphany. And the fact the game existed before the browser is a powerful reason on their side. > I'm not saying this is a serious bug, but to claim there is nothing > wrong is disingenuous. Indeed, browser developers choose a widely used name for it. It was so common that another piece of software already was named epiphany. That's clearly a wrong decision. > Perhaps you could explain to me why: > > 1) typing "epiphany" launches the browser but typing "epiphany-game" > launches the game, > 2) typing "man epiphany" brings up the the man page for the browser > but typing "man epiphanty-game" brings up the game's help, > 3) the Debian install rules for the epiphany package *manually rename > the epiphany executable from the default name of epiphany to > epiphany-game*. > > All I'm asking for here is a little consistency. Maybe then the epiphany alternative (currently there's no real binary named epiphany, just epiphany-gecko and epiphany-webkit) should be renamed epiphany-browser. 1) and 2) are consistent between them (manpage must follow binary name) - 3) (and 1)) is to ease the life of our users: epiphany browser package used /usr/bin/epiphany despite /usr/games/epiphany already existed. This resulted in the game command being masked (notice than /usr/bin appears first than /usr/games in $PATH), so to avoid users to enter full path to run the game a renaming was done. See the epiphany changelog [0], year 2003. > > You'll have to file a separate bug for that, but given the amount of > > "confused people" I see in this bug I think things are pretty clear. > > It's a minor issue. People are busy. Ubuntu has already had one user > file a bug because they thought the browser hadn't installed properly > [1]. > > [1] https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/epiphany/+bug/40922 Did you see how it was resolved? :) regards, [0] http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/e/epiphany/epiphany_0.5.1-4/changelog -- Ricardo Mones http://people.debian.org/~mones «What I tell you three times is true. -- Lewis Carroll»
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
