Re: Mercury compiler (policy, anybody)?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 24 Feb 1997, Milan Zamazal wrote:
> Date: 24 Feb 1997 11:52:36 +0100
> From: Milan Zamazal <email@example.com>
> To: Debian Development <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Subject: Mercury compiler (policy, anybody)?
> I could possibly package Mercury compiler (which is on wish list) but
> I have two questions about it first:
> 1. (Policy question):
> Mercury contains binary `mc', which is the same name as for popular
> Midnight Commander binary. I didn't like to see such a stupid
> conflict between mercury and mc only because their binaries have the
> same name. Is there some solution of this problem?
Change the name of mercury to mcc or add mercury_ as a prefix (if it uses
autoconf, do `configure --program-prefix=mercury_'), or call it simply
"mercury" (if that's the name of the package, why not?).
Midnight commander should get the because:-
1. The package is called "mc". People expect the binary to be
2. It's more popular.
3. It's already in the distribution.
Tom Lees <email@example.com> http://www.lpsg.demon.co.uk/
PGP ID 87D4D065, fingerprint 2A 66 86 9D 02 4D A6 1E B8 A2 17 9D 4F 9B 89 D6
finger firstname.lastname@example.org for full public key (also available on keyservers)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----