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

Bug#190753: marked as done ([AMENDMENT 12/04/2004] frown on programs in PATH with language extentions)

Your message dated Fri, 04 Jun 2010 09:28:30 -0700
with message-id <[🔎] 87eigmbw41.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
and subject line Re: Bug#190753: About dropping the ‘should’ recommendation to rename binary programs using a suffix to indicate their programming language.
has caused the Debian Bug report #190753,
regarding [AMENDMENT 12/04/2004] frown on programs in PATH with language extentions
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
190753: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=190753
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.9.0
Severity: wishlist

I suggest we add the following to policy section 11.4.
(Wording by Bill Allombert.)

     When scripts are installed into into a directory in the system PATH,
     the script name should not include an extension such as .sh or .pl
     that denotes the scripting language currently used to implement it.

This was previously discussed on the thread entited 
"policy should frown on programs in PATH with language extentions (ie, .pl)"
on the debian-policy list. I will leave off the full rationalle, which
is in the first message of that thread. The short version is that using
this sort of name seems to be becoming more prevelant, and that it
asks for problems when a program is reimplemented, and makes it harder to
type command names.

I am looking for seconds to this proposal.

-- 
see shy jo

Attachment: pgp8d4g2i8CsN.pgp
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> writes:
> Le Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 11:45:41PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :

>> As discussed in that thread, the best path for a contentious point like
>> this with good arguments on both sides would be to go through the
>> Technical Committee, which is designed to be able to make decisions
>> like that.

>> I'd like to dispose of this bug one way or another, either by reclosing
>> it or by appealing it to the Technical Committee.  Which direction
>> would you like to go with it at this point?

> I agree that there is no consensus. For my packages, I have stopped
> removing extensions because I do not want to take the risk to break
> users scripts. I would like to appeal to the Technical Committee, but I
> am about to take holidays, so it would be rather at the end of June.

> But my experience of “after the holidays” plans is that my mailbox will
> be full of other issues that will be equally hungry for my time. How
> about closing the bug for the moment? When appealing to the TC, I will
> take care of unarchiving, reopening, and reassigning.

That sounds good to me.  Thanks!  Closing with this message.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

--- End Message ---
Reply to: