Re: i
luther@skyinet.net <luther@skyinet.net> wrote:
> why not change them to something like: package.name or package-name
> or something like that.
Hmm.. if the binary 'gs' were to be renamed [as was proposed earlier
in this thread] it would become gs-gs (or gs-aladdin-gs)? It's
an amusing idea, but certainly non-standard.
In my opinion, if people need to use short names for aliases, they
should either give the aliases precedence over the debian binaries, or
they should use dpkg-divert to satisfy their need for non-collisions.
Realize also that you're not going to be able to get away from
namespace problems. "Solving" the problem by getting rid of short
names doesn't address the underlying issues. For example, on one
of my systems, I've got a sco version of perl with Oracle bindings
in /usr/local/bin and the debian perl in the usual location. In
different contexts, both need to be named "perl".
Such is life.
--
Raul
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: