Re: Proposal: /etc/friendlynames
On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 06:25:10PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-03-25 at 23:41, Number Six wrote:
>
> > Proposal, additions to Policy and changes to dpkg:
> >
> > (3) Add /etc/friendlynames and update-friendlynames to dpkg, which
> > works similar to /etc/alternatives except applications sharing
> > names are not expected to provide similar functionality or
> > accept identical arguments.
> >
> If this is identical to alternatives in functionality, and it sounds
> like it is, then that's how it should be implemented.
Yeah. Since no package should install a binary with a generic name
(such as pim, viewpdf, or display, word-processor, or spreadsheet) as
some have agreed, *if* one desires to have such names available on the
entire system one can use update-alternatives, or one can use shell
aliases. The key to making this work is verifying no package installs
such a generically named binary, thus the suggestion for adding such to
policy.
It's probably not a big huge deal, that requires policy, as long as
thoughtful people keep binaries named viewpdf and display out of the
system. And, as I said, I really hope no one ever installs a "pim",
because this is a FriendlyName *I* want.
Reply to: