Re: i

[Raul Miller <rdm@test.legislate.com>]

Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de <Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de> wrote:
> I don´t want to imply that this makes sense, I actually find it quite
> stupid, so we mustn´t follow upstream authors who choose "B" as a
> name.

Are you saying that you want to preserve the name B for use by an author
who has a good reason for using it?  Or, are you saying that B is such
a bad name that you don't think *any* author should use it?  I think
you're saying the latter -- but I don't think it's a part of the debian
charter to pass esthetic judgements on the naming conventions choosen
by other groups (except where this causes conflicts).

It *does* make sense to pass esthetic judgements on the naming conventions
choosen by people writing debian-specific software.  [Including absurd
packages which don't do anything but provide tens of thousands of 
executables.]

Here's an excerpt I wrote from bug report #18062.  Christian had raised
an objection to the name B, and I was responding to him:


> B is the command which adds files to an existing sam session. [Or, in
> the debian version, creates such a session if there is not one already.]
>
> [sam is basically an immensly powerful version of ed.]
>
> B works the same both inside and outside of sam.  If you want to change
> it, you should probably address re-building sam's command language
> (which also happens to be the language used to communicate between
> the X interface and the editor).
>
> Of course, if a higher-priority package requires the B command, then
> we'll have to do something about the issue. However, note that sam is
> the standard editor of the plan 9 operating system, so it's unlikely
> that gratuitous debian changes will be accepted by the upstream author.



-- 
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 .