Re: Binaries with the same name

Il giorno Sun, 10 Feb 2008 12:16:17 +0200
Lars Wirzenius <liw@iki.fi> ha scritto:

> On la, 2008-02-09 at 19:48 +0100, David Paleino wrote:
> > The problem is that "translate" by <anibal> does only de<->en translations,
> > while "my" translate offers a wider range of options and conversions (and
> > it's expandable, through a XML configuration file). Thus I don't believe
> > that using the alternatives system (which, I admit, I cannot use, since I
> > never needed it for my packages) would be a suitable solution. This is way
> > I suggested him to rename his binary to something less generic than
> > "translate".
>
> In general, the problem with renaming in these kinds of situations is
> that the older package has users and some of those users are used to the
> old name of the binary in the old package. If it's just a matter of
> training users, it's not a huge deal, but there might be programmatic
> uses, which would have to be tracked down. Thus, it is generally
> speaking better to let the old package keep the binary name and pick a
> new name for the binary in the new package.

In fact, the Ubuntu package renames it to "translate-bin". But that's awkward
to me: what's the difference between "translate" and "translate-bin"? One
should have to read both manpages to understand. But if we have, for example,
"translate-de-en" and "translate", the differences are clear. However, I don't
believe I'll ever use translate-bin.

I still think nothing is the pure first option to deserve being generic. Say one new development arises and makes translation on a better way that your package does now. Which would deserve to be the "generic" translate then? You? Because your package arrived early? Or the other one, because they applied the same rationale you are applying right here but in the opposite side?