Re: renaming scripts provided by upstream
Hi Drake!
You wrote:
> Quoth Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@2008.43-1.org>, on 2008-12-12 22:30:24 +0100:
> > I understand that it should not matter to the user what language is
> > used to implement a particular script and support omitting
> > extensions. But what about renaming scripts provided by upstream?
> > In this case renaming programs to comply with the Debian naming scheme
> > creates new problems:
>
> Not being well-acquainted with this bit, I can't comment very well on
> what Debian policy would say, but wouldn't using the upstream name
> plus a non-extensioned symlink solve several of these cases?
I think policy tries make sure there are no "foo.pl" or "bla.sh" scripts
in the path, regardless of what they are symlinked to. I don't know
what the rationale behind that is though (apart from the ugliness).
And in any case, it's a SHOULD, so there can be exceptions to the rule.
Ansgar, which package and binary is this about, in particular? That
info might make the question a bit more concrete...
Regards,
Bas.
--
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| Bas Zoetekouw | Sweet day, so cool, so calm, so bright, |
|--------------------| The bridall of the earth and skie: |
| bas@zoetekouw.net | The dew shall weep thy fall tonight; |
+--------------------| For thou must die. |
+-----------------------------------------+
Reply to: