Re: Claiming ‘/usr/bin/coverage’ for a Python-specific programmer tool
Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> writes:
> On 10/16/2013 07:32 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Patching upstream's assumptions of command names is a feature of the
> > landscape for Debian packagers. I don't consider that a reason to
> > presume ‘/usr/bin/coverage’ on Debian should refer to a
> > Python-specific tool.
>
> I'm not denying the fact it's possible to do what you say. I'm saying
> it's too much effort compared to providing /usr/bin/coverage in
> Debian.
Yes, providing ‘/usr/bin/coverage’ would be a small amount of effort.
That is less important than the question: is it a good idea to do it?
Many bad ideas would be a small amount of effort to implement.
So, comparing amounts of implementation effort does not make a
compelling argument.
> You are simply ignoring this point of my argumentation, which is the
> most important part.
If that's the most important part, I fear you don't have a compelling
case for this request.
> You have also ignore the point where I say that there's currently no
> conflict, so it doesn't mater.
The best case is if *no* language-specific programming tool ever grabs
that over-broad name in Debian.
I can say with confidence that this is exactly why the program has been
deliberately installed with the name ‘/usr/bin/python-coverage’ in
Debian for every release of the ‘python-coverage’ package to date. It is
a positive reason that remains relevant.
> Could you please reply to both points?
Those are my responses, thanks for pursuing them.
I'm glad we discussed this. I haven't seen a convincing argument that
overrides the consensus here that a Python-specific programming tool
should not claim the broad name ‘/usr/bin/coverage’ in Debian.
--
\ “The greater the artist, the greater the doubt; perfect |
`\ confidence is granted to the less talented as a consolation |
_o__) prize.” —Robert Hughes |
Ben Finney <ben@benfinney.id.au>
Reply to: