Re: Proposal: /etc/friendlynames
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 06:00:50AM -0800, Tom Ballard wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 01:41:53PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 05:37:39AM -0800, Number Six wrote:
> > > Aw, yer just a big meaniehead poopin on my good idea.
> >
> > I hope you have fun getting packages through the NEW queue.
>
> You said that putting /etc/alternatives/pim and expecting
> other people who provide /usr/bin/pim to do the same and conflicting
> with people who don't was reasonable. Are you changing your mind?
alternatives != "friendlynames"
I don't particularly like the alternatives idea, but you seem completely
insistent on getting to own /usr/bin/pim so it seemed like the least bad
solution. It's certainly a lot less bad than claiming the symlink in an
unreliable way. You get to fight it out with other people writing PIMs
in the future; I don't much care about that, because I don't think that
people with a grip care about having /usr/bin/pim.
friendlynames is just a bogus thing; it makes the system less robust and
less predictable (there's a *reason* alternatives are supposed to have
compatible interfaces). Use shell aliases if you want short names for
things. Improve the menu system. Whatever. Anything that involves
playing nicely with other people.
> Or are you complaining about me not using my real name?
>
> Or are you just making a joke about having a thick skin?
No, I'm observing that your railroad attitude to shared resources (i.e.
namespace) is poor in a co-operative project.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: