Patrice Dumas schrieb: >> I also don't see a problem why binary in the package for which this >> thread was initiated should be renamed. There is no trash command, it >> provides functionality which clearly fits the name, so why the heck >> should it be renamed? Just because someone might as well add such a >> command later? It's like not using your roller skates to keep them in a >> nice new condition, until you have grown out of them... > > The issue is that many upstream don't care about using names that are > not prone to future conflicts, and use generic names. In my opinion, > generic names should be reserved to standardized programs (like > sendmail, ls, ...). Upstream don't care and selfishly choose the name > [...] In general, I agree that a good naming scheme helps in keeping things clean and simple. We should communicate this so that upcoming projects choose wisely from the very beginning and can ask existing projects to consider such a change. However, it is not the duty of an upstream project to foresee any possible conflict or animosity in this regard. I can understand that the trash tool chose that command name. It makes sense, it's short and clear, and for a command line tool that's something that makes users use it -- or not if done badly. It is likely that if another application provides another trash command the functionality will be equal or similar. Then it would be a matter for the alternatives system to sort this out. In general this is the very reason why the alternatives system is there. In case of the trash command the thing that probably makes many feel uncomfortable is that there is no such de-facto standard like sendmail, yet. And thus one might bet on the wrong horse. The allegation projects choose the name "selfishly" is besides the point. An upstream project does not and should not have to please all or even "only" the major distros. Again, if upstream projects act careful and have this in mind, perfect, and let us encourage them to do so. But now renaming it in a package and thus diverting only in this distro is not a good idea. In the case of player the name was chosen after a Shakespeare citation (cf. http://playerstage.sourceforge.net/wiki/Basic_FAQ#Why_are_Player_and_Stage_.28etc.29_so_named.3F) which is related to the functionality of the programs. So saying they chose it selfishly as if they did it to eliminate competition or whatever doesn't sound convincing, and they definitely didn't want to block media players or whatever I'm sure. Tim -- Tim Niemueller <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> www.niemueller.de ================================================================= Imagination is more important than knowledge. (Albert Einstein) -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
