Bug#190753: About dropping the ‘should’ recommendation to rename binary programs using a suffix to indicate their programming language.
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 06:33:53PM -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
> > In the few cases where I've run into this problem, patches have
> > been readily accepted upstream.
>
> Indeed, that is the way to go, and the core of my argument is that
> renaming before the patches are accepted is a deviation that wastes
> the time of our users (in that case, me).
Sure, but I'd expect that in most cases, a simple patch to upstream,
with a resultant ack for the next distribution should take a few days
at most. If there's a total rejection, then it's a bug, but it's most
likely wontfix.
In the cases where upstream is unresponsive that it takes more than a
few days to do the go-around, it probably shouldn't be being packaged
in the first place. [Or at least, it shouldn't be uploaded until the
upstream gets back to you.]
> Yes, at the beginning I was solving the problem by moving the
> scripts to /usr/share. But again, as a user of my own package, I was
> wasting my own time at work, and stopped doing this.
Perhaps it'd be useful for continued discussion if specific examples
of packages and executables hwich are installed to a system PATH which
you've needed to rename would help work through this.
Don Armstrong
--
All bad precedents began as justifiable measures.
-- Gaius Julius Caesar in "The Conspiracy of Catiline" by Sallust
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: