Re: more overly-generic package names from gnustep
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 07:38:10AM +1100, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> > So the alternative so far is only to allow *no package at all* to be
> > named in an elegant and aesthetically pleasing way? There can only be
> > one for each name - be it a generic term or an invented name. Why not
> > allow this opportunity to those who are first?
>
> There's also the issue of potential disinformation. For some users, a
> package such as "terminal" may have an air of "this is *the* canonical
> terminal app that everyone should install". OTOH, leaving the overly
> generic name unused makes the situation clear - this is simply one of a
> very large number of alternative packages all of which more or less do
> the same thing (and many of which are designed to offer consistency with
> different desktop environments),
Again, I have to point out the counter examples:
pager for less and its ilk
and display just being the binary that imagemagick provides
cal
And the whole history of Unix/Posix and it's two-letter commands.
It's just that you've said: okay, nobody will argue that *these* are the
canonical tools. But you're stifling innovation!
The only real difference between "links" and "mozilla" providing
/etc/alternatives/x-www-browser and GNUStep and Acrobat providing
/etc/alternatives/viewpdf and Tom Ballard and Kontact and Evolution
providing /etc/alternatives/pim is one of degree -- and that's a
slipperly slope. You're being arbitrary and capricous.
However, I give in and will just ship a shell script with my package to
provide the generic alias. I do think that the package suggesting a
list of generic aliases to its uniquely named binary is A Good Thing.
Reply to: