[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Intent to package: F



> On Tue, Dec 08, 1998 at 10:43:52PM -0600, Dale James Thompson wrote:
> 
> > Should I upload again with the binary named fbrowser?
> 
> Please do... after fixing a little nitpick (read on...)
> 
> > I changed the name of the package to fbrowser when someone else pointed
> > out the namespace pollution problem. But, in the package I left the binary
> > named f.
> 
> The pollution problem is more serious then. /usr/bin/X11/f is *not* nice. I
> don't want to
> 
> $ f
> 
> and have a file manager launched. That's precisely the kind of situation the
> name-space pseudo-policy is trying to address: hard to remember names, names
> that can be easily mistyped (as in this case, where I left of a 'd'). We
> have enough two-letter commands (ls, mv, cp, bc, cc, nm, ar, mt, ps, ci, co,
> nl, as, uz, wc...); the only one-letter commands accepted are [ and w (did I
> miss anything?)
> 
> That aside, I'd really like to see the package, sounds good!
> 
> 
> 						Marcelo

I've uploaded it again with all f's changed to fbrowser's, including those in 
the sorce code. The program created a ~/.f directory now it uses ~/.fbrowser.

Attachment: pgpwteZpgkaXX.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: