On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 12:10:49PM +0200, Tim Niemueller wrote: > > > It is not distros who should dictate that. It is collective benefits. > > A point relevant to fedora is that distros are more likely to be aware > > about these coordination failures because in a sense they are > > coordinating collections of softwares, but upstreams should also be > > proactively working to avoid those coordination failures linked with > > misused names. > > Agreed, though I wouldn't name it misused names but rather unfortunate > chosen names. Once again when I say 'misused' I am not pointing a finger on upstreams. The misuse is relevant from a collective point of view. > >> every project's own interest to choose a name which does not collide > >> with the name of another project. But besides that the project is free > >> to chose a name that fits the project best. > > > > No, there is also a responsibility in not misusing scarce words. > > I can't see how that is misused for the trash tool. It's used, in a > sensible way. trash is a generic name, and I think that it should not be chosen by a specific project, but be part of a standard that defines command line args. If it is used by a specific project now, it will become very hard to revert to genericity. > It's all about a conflict. I see that we want to make sure that what we > do today makes sense tomorrow. But for these particular words I don't > see a problem, it's a valid reason to use them. > > > project providing such functionalities (especially for player) were > > responsible enough not to use a generic word without caution. > > The whole project is named Player, why shouldn't they be "eligible" to > have a binary named player!? Is it possibly because you are used to > player implicating "media player"? Because there should be agreement on what the command 'player' provides, on the command line arguments before it is used. -- Pat -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
