Re: Bug#190753: About dropping the ‘should’ recommendation to rename binary programs using a suffix to indicate their programming language.
Le Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 05:04:06PM +1100, Ben Finney a écrit :
> Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> writes:
>
> > My main argument is that it makes Debian installations incompatible
> > with installations on other operating systems as well with on-line
> > documentation.
>
> That doesn't seem sufficient reason to avoid improving the quality of
> Debian by installing command programs with sensible primary command
> names. I'm in favour of keeping the current recommendation.
>
> Note that I'm neutral on the idea of preserving the language-specific
> name as an alternative. I don't think that would violates Policy §10.4,
> am I wrong?
As a user I strongly dislike to have to edit my scripts and command line
sessions in order to make them usable for my colleagues, and I would be very
annoyed if the first thing to do after installing a package would be to check
if I have to change the PATH environment variable in my current sessions and my
logins scripts.
I fully agree that when chosing a name for a new program the author should
better not include a suffix to indicate in which language it is written. But on
the other hand, once this choice has been made and the program distributed, I
think that the inconvenients of renaming only in Debian are higher than the
advantages.
‘Improving the quality’ is a vague statement. I also can also proclaim that we
will improve the quality of Debian by serving to our users programs with the
same name as in the rest of the world.
Renaming is a practical disadvantage for the users and the package maintainers.
What are the practical advantages? Do you have examples where the Debian Policy
was helpful?
Have a nice day,
--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
Reply to: