Hi Phil,
Am 18.12.2009 um 23:44 schrieb Philip Brown:
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Sebastian Kayser
<[email protected]> wrote:
Philip Brown wrote on 18.12.2009 22:11:
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.
by that argument, you might say that me naming "pkg-get" as such, and
not "apt-get", was just too confusing, because since the userland
syntax is the same, and it IS a 90% clone of apt-get, I should have
kept the name as apt-get.
No, because it is not apt-get, but a 90% clone. cswua is 100%
update-alternatives. If you as a admin-user do this seldom
you won't bother typing it and if you do it regularly then
you'll add a shell alias. Or would you also argument to have
a "ll" (or "cswll") binary for "ls -l" in GNU coreutils?
Best regards
-- Dago
_______________________________________________
maintainers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
