Hello *, a fine reply to a common concern. :-)
Cheers, Flo ----- Forwarded message from Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ----- From: Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: policy on binary/package naming convention To: [email protected] Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 10:33:30 +0100 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I (and I assume most users) expect the binary to be of the same name >> and case as the package name. > > The 'mercurial' package has a primary executable of 'hg', and none > called 'mercurial'. All its users expect this, and write documentation > and scripts and other interfaces based on this expectation. How would > your proposed executable naming policy affect this? Symlinks "mercurium", "mercurial", "mercury", "hydrargyrum", and "quicksilver" pointing to /usr/bin/hg. Plus l10n packages "quecksilber" (symlink Quecksilber), "mercure" (symlinks mercure and vif-argent) etc.pp. :-), Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer ----- End forwarded message -----
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
