[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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...


| 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: