Philip Brown wrote on 18.12.2009 22:11: > On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Philip Brown <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I like the concept of the alternatives system. I'm suggesting we >>> implement debian normal behavior, and then *augment* it, to be better. >>> Such as, including a short-command invocation. >> If I sent CSWalternatives as is for release, what would you say? >> > > I would say, "please add a symlink for a shorter name to type, and I'd > be happy to drop it in" :-) > > Otherwise, if you wished to argue aobut it, then things get complicated. > Given that this is a proposed addition to the standard CSW toolset, > its very important to make at "all it can be", as it were :-) > It's not my decision alone, but I'd want to have a decent open > discussion/vote on it. either via the board, or the maintainer list. > > As a pre-argument I would mention: what strong argument do you have > for specifically NOT putting it in? It in no way detracts from the > functionality, and it definately enhances it. It also allows us to > give it a bit more csw personality at the same time, which is an > additional bonus. > > Not to mention it is a trivial amount of work to do. Just add a symlink.
A slight concern of mine would be: besides the symlink, it is another invocation method that one has to keep in mind. update-alternatives on it's own is canonical and well-known from Debian, add cswua (or similar) to the mix and it will introduce ambiguity when people start talking about tools. In the end I would bet you a crate of beer that there are more OpenCSW users who would potentially be exposed to update-alternatives/cswua and ambiguity than there are OpenCSW users who are currently exposed to non-autocompletion-shells. ;) Sebastian _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
