On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:16:43PM -0700, Dima Kogan wrote: > Chow Loong Jin <hyperair@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 01:48:36PM -0700, Dima Kogan wrote: > >> > >> If it's not too late, would it be possible to change the name of this > >> package? "gpx" is also the name of a common file format used for GPS > >> tracks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS_eXchange_Format > >> > >> I think it may be confusing to have a "gpx" package that refers to > >> something completely different. > > > > I know, but upstream is unresponsive, and changing the name downstream seems > > downright irresponsible. > > > > What do you suggest? > > In cases like this the precedent is to use a dash (-) to disambiguate. > For instance the 'ack' searching tool (http://beyondgrep.com/) is in a > package called 'ack-grep' to avoid a conflict with an earlier 'ack' > package. Could this package be called something like 'gpx-cnc'? Or > 'gpx-3d'? A better name exists, probably. Do you think such a change is > good, or just keeping it 'gpx' is the way to go? The precedents for git (git-core) and ack (ack-grep) are kind of different -- they were package name conflicts. These are not resolvable without renaming at least one of them. In this case, we're talking about confusion between a package name + /usr/bin binary and a file format. There isn't, to my knowledge, any other executable in PATH by the name of gpx, nor is there a package named gpx, so this is still rather in the gray area. I'm not even sure that there would be much confusion arising from this package being named as gpx -- Not many programs or packages are named exactly the same as the file formats they consume. -- Kind regards, Loong Jin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature