On 19 June 2010 16:06, Sandro Tosi <[email protected]> wrote: > it wouldn't be the first time we rename an upstream exec because too > generic. Should we not doing this because big-G is so big and have > nice tool?
No. But this doesn't rule out other reasons. I'm actually inclined to think '/usr/bin/google' is fine in this case, for the reasons Umang outlined in an earlier email: * This is a sufficiently official Google project. * All the documentation refers to 'google'. * People might start writing scripts around 'google' that we would have to patch. And having 'google' makes 'google calendar <foo>' read a lot nicer than 'googlecl calendar <foo>' - it actually makes sense in English as a phrase. I think Debian Policy only cares if another package has a conflicting filename? -- Tim Retout <[email protected]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
