Re: Conflict over /usr/bin/dune
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Conflict over /usr/bin/dune"):
> Under the circumstances it seems obvious that, at the very least, the
> ocaml build tool should not be allowed the name /usr/bin/dune.
Perhaps I should have stated this explicitly, since it was not obvious
unless you follow the links.
`Dune' is not, as a piece of software, primarily either the ocaml
build tool, or the 3D modeller.
Mostly it is DUNE, a "modular C++ library for the solution of partial
differential equations using grid-based methods". That's what you get
if you visit the Wikipedia link I provided - not even a disambiguation
link. The others don't rate a mention.
It is already in Debian:
stretch$ apt-file search /usr/bin/dune
Now of course libdune-common-dev only has various /usr/bin/dune?*
so doesn't precisely conflict with this. It would be possible for
one of whitedune and ocaml-dune (`odune?') to have /usr/bin/dune
to coexist with it.
But overall I think this, plus the history of the ocaml program's
name, does demonstrate that the ocaml program's claim to the overall
software name `dune', and the command name `dune' is incredibly weak.
I just checked and `odune' seems to be available. For a build tool a
reasonably short name is justified. The `o' prefix is often used with
ocaml and though there is of course a risk of clashes with both
individual programs and with some suites like the old OpenStep stuff,
it seems that `/usr/bin/odune', odune(1) et al, are not taken.
HTH. I know this may just be seen as my usual opinion in these
Judgement of Solomon cases and that the underlying policy is
controversial. But whenever something like this happens and causes a
major stink, it serves to demonstrate to others what they want to, and
Ian Jackson <email@example.com> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.