Le Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 05:04:06PM +1100, Ben Finney a écrit : > Charles Plessy <[email protected]> writes: > > > My main argument is that it makes Debian installations incompatible > > with installations on other operating systems as well with on-line > > documentation. > > That doesn't seem sufficient reason to avoid improving the quality of > Debian by installing command programs with sensible primary command > names. I'm in favour of keeping the current recommendation. > > Note that I'm neutral on the idea of preserving the language-specific > name as an alternative. I don't think that would violates Policy §10.4, > am I wrong?
As a user I strongly dislike to have to edit my scripts and command line sessions in order to make them usable for my colleagues, and I would be very annoyed if the first thing to do after installing a package would be to check if I have to change the PATH environment variable in my current sessions and my logins scripts. I fully agree that when chosing a name for a new program the author should better not include a suffix to indicate in which language it is written. But on the other hand, once this choice has been made and the program distributed, I think that the inconvenients of renaming only in Debian are higher than the advantages. ‘Improving the quality’ is a vague statement. I also can also proclaim that we will improve the quality of Debian by serving to our users programs with the same name as in the rest of the world. Renaming is a practical disadvantage for the users and the package maintainers. What are the practical advantages? Do you have examples where the Debian Policy was helpful? Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
