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

Re: policy on binary/package naming convention


* Michael Gilbert <michael.s.gilbert@gmail.com> [060113 06:30]:

[ binary name differs from package name ]
> This is bad in terms of usability/discoverability.  I (and I assume
> most users) expect the binary to be of the same name and case as the
> package name.  I know how to discover the correct binary, but I would
> suspect that many users do not know apt-file exists; let alone how to
> use it.

Yes, I don't like that too.  But I don't see there a big Proglem:
Running "dpkg -L <packagename>|grep bin" isn't that hard, isn't it?

However I agree:  It would be a nice to have it documented, if the
binaryname differs from the packagename, or - in the case of capitalized
letters - symlinked.

However, I want to point out, that it makes pretty much sense to have
different names.

I maintain a game calle "planetpenguin racer".  Source tarball and
binary are called "ppracer".  Since I thought that most user would
search for the long name I named the package planetpenguin-racer,
mentioning the short form in the package description.  IMHO it is a
benefit, if the packagename itselfs tells a bit about the package.
ppracer_0.3.1-7_i386.deb doesn't.

Untill now I didn't heard any critics from my users, but I could add
something to README.Debian...

Yours sincerely,


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: