Re: debmake contains namespace pollution and bugs procedure
On Tue, 14 Oct 1997, Andreas Jellinghaus wrote:
>please don't discuss that stuff. let us talk about the problem :
[List of stuff]
>some people think, that this is name space polution, others disagree.
>save all packages with prefix "deb", we are down to
I think some of these might be a problem - the 'deb*' namespace surely
should not be used without some additional identification on programs
that deal with a rather specific thing - in the way that dpkg and its
other commands are dpkg* rather than, eg, debshlibdeps. I can think of
quite distinct programs that might equally be called by these names.
Why not dbmk*? Makes it clear what they are for, and only adds one
>uscan uupdate release checkbash build dch
>is there a problem with uscan and uupdate ? nobody cmplained about them
uscan has less of a problem, but uupdate looks like a UUCP program,
>is there a problem with release ? i don't know.
>is there a problem with build ?
Well, those names could be _anything_.
>is there a problem with dch ?
>i like the short name (it's an alias for debchange), maybe others don't.
>if you argue, that i could use an alias, you are right.
Then we don't need to argue it, if you know it already.
>we can ask chris politetly to consider these changes. we cannot request
>it : free software only works with being polite, not with quarrel and
>bug report hick-hack.
I think that Chris is perhaps ignoring the bug report because of its
source rather than its validity. Its my belief that the majority of
developers suppose this namespace pollution is a problem...
David/Kirsty 'Gotterdammerung' Damerell. firstname.lastname@example.org
CUWoCS President. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~damerell/ Hail Eris!
|___| So you think you can stone me and spit in my eye? So you think |___|
| | | you can love me and leave me to die? Queen: Bohemian Rhapsody. | | |
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .