Re: RFS: googlecl (now uploaded to mentors repo)
On 19 June 2010 16:06, Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> wrote:
> it wouldn't be the first time we rename an upstream exec because too
> generic. Should we not doing this because big-G is so big and have
> nice tool?
No. But this doesn't rule out other reasons.
I'm actually inclined to think '/usr/bin/google' is fine in this case,
for the reasons Umang outlined in an earlier email:
* This is a sufficiently official Google project.
* All the documentation refers to 'google'.
* People might start writing scripts around 'google' that we would
have to patch.
And having 'google' makes 'google calendar <foo>' read a lot nicer
than 'googlecl calendar <foo>' - it actually makes sense in English as
a phrase.
I think Debian Policy only cares if another package has a conflicting filename?
--
Tim Retout <diocles@debian.org>
Reply to: