Michael Schwendt wrote: > There seems to be a separate "autogen-devel" package, which contains > header files. Most likely options.h is included. Given that autogen is a development package anyway. GCC-from-source builders aside, essentially anyone wanting autogen is going to want the two files in autogen-devel. Given that and the sub-marginal amount of space taken by the two files, I fail to understand why it is worth the bother to separate. >> and the two misnamed executables. > > The package uses the "alternatives" system for these two. Probably this is > not obvious. /usr/bin/columns and /usr/bin/getdefs are two very generic > file names which pollute the /usr/bin namespace and bear the risk of > causing a conflict with other software. It would be beneficial if autogen > called the files differently and used an own namespace, e.g. with a prefix > or postfix. "getdefs" can be so treated. Go ahead and add an "ag-" prefix or something. I don't particularly see it as a very generic name, but renaming it is not crucial. Renaming "columns" _is_ a problem. "autogen" under various incarnations is about a decade old with widely available public releases available for over 6 years and it has been officially "GNU" for several years now. "columns" is a program incorporated into many templates. It cannot be renamed without invalidating the templates in use by at least a few hundred people. That is not a good idea. "columns" can certainly be treated as a "generic" program anyway. It does what its name suggests fairly well. Nearly as well as ``ls -C'' or ``ls -x'' (does not support different widths for different columns). By making "columns" have a separate name, you are invalidating these templates. Regards, Bruce -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
